The appointment seemed not only an unconscionable conflict of interest, but a calculated insult to the many New Zealanders who regard abortion as deeply repugnant. Were they really expected to believe the government couldn’t find someone who didn’t have a material stake in the abortion business? (Certifying consultants were paid $5 million in 2008, and even pro-abortionists acknowledge it’s a lucrative business.) The very nature of her professional activity suggested Dr Fenwicke was not neutral on this divisive issue, yet Parliament rejected an attempt by MP Gordon Copeland, a staunch opponent of abortion, to overturn her nomination. (It was supposedly a conscience vote but Labour MPs were instructed to support Dr Fenwicke, meaning her appointment was assured.)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3935262/A-reminder-that-the-administration-of-the-abortion-law-is-a-travesty

[Note: Article link sourced from Family First - a well respected charity registered with the Charities Commission.See www.familyfirst.org.nz and www.charities.govt.nz ].

For rest of story go to New York Times Report by Monica Davey dated April 13, 2010

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

The Abortion Law Reform Association, [ALRANZ] on 16 June issued a media release in response to the release by Statistics New Zealand of the abortion statistics for 2008. Dr Margaret Sparrow, President of ALRANZ stated:

 “We would like to see the abortion law reflecting what happens. We totally agree with the anti-abortion groups who say that it is ridiculous that 98 per cent of abortions in New Zealand are done on mental health grounds, because that is patently a farce.”

Dr Sparrow was for many years the Director of the Parkview Abortion facility in Wellington and during this time terminated the lives of thousands of unborn children, her statement must be taken very seriously. Dr Sparrow is stating clearly that certifying consultants are using mental health grounds to authorise abortions to provide abortion on demand, abortion on demand is unlawful. The Crimes Act requires that doctors must have good faith in their belief that the continued life of the unborn child represents a serious threat to the mental health of the woman. The failure of doctors to have good faith renders the abortion unlawful. Dr Sparrow’s statement indicates that many unborn children are being deprived of their lives unlawfully. This is a serious injustice and a violation of the right to life of unborn children. It also undermines the rule of law.

The government has a grave responsibility to protect the lives of its future citizens who are the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family. What action is the government taking to ensure that the lives of unborn children receive the full protection of the law?

Abortion, the violent dismemberment of a child in the womb is the ultimate in child abuse. New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child abuse in the world. The government is sadly opposed to the national referendum on smacking, holding that it is a criminal offence to allow a light smack on a child as part of good parenting. The message the government is giving is that it is acceptable to kill a child in the womb but unlawful to smack the child after it is born. The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards challenges the Prime Minister, John Key to tell the community what action his government is going to take to stop the unlawful violence and child abuse imposed on our unborn children in our public hospitals, sanctioned by his government and funded by the taxpayer?

The Women’s National Abortion Action Campaign (WONAAC) which has for years been promoting abortion as a woman’s right, issued a press release today that calls on “the news media” to “help [their lobby group] uncover the source of Right to Life’s funding [and] make clear [to the public] the group’s full agenda.” Most will see this for what it is – a last minute desperate smear campaign directed at a properly constituted Incorporated Society that publicly discloses its audited financial accounts every year via the Companies website, as well as its objectives. It is clearly a blatant attempt to influence the Court of Appeal by casting doubt on the integrity of a group committed to safeguarding defenseless unborn children against the sordid death culture of the abortion industry and its highly paid State-funded practitioners.

On Tuesday and Wednesday this week Right to Life will seek to defend a ruling of a High Court Judge – Justice Forrest Miller – that questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand that had been, and continue to be, sanctioned by certifying consultants under the supposed ‘watchful eye’ of the Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC). Under their ‘watch’ the number of annual abortions has risen alarmingly to over 18,500. The ASC has appealed against the High Court ruling that questioned the legality of many abortions in New Zealand and Right-to-Life is seeking to have the decision upheld by the Court of Appeal, as it is entitled to do. Right-to-Life clearly draws its financial support from its hundreds of members and others supported of its objectives, including the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc (SPCS). Women who have had abortions and now regret it and suffer long-term consequences are also among those who support Right-to-Life.

WONAAC spokeswoman Di Cleary has demanded the media uncover the so-called secrets concerning those who are “bank-rolling its [Right-to-Life] efforts to end New Zealand women’s access to safe abortions.” This is the same woman who on International Women’s Day in 2006, demanded that all male MPs promote condom use instead of considering a Private Member’s Bill by Labour Cabinet Minister George Hawkins that sought to tighten up legislation on abortions. The Bill sought to ensure more education and counselling for women who go for multiple abortions and have expected the State to continue to fund their socially irresponsible lifestyles.

WONAAC spokeswoman Di Cleary had the gall to blame hard-working MPs for failing to create a culture of condom use and sought to subvert the democratic rights of supporters of the Bill to have it considered by a select committee. WONAAC and its bedmate the Abortion Law Reform Association, have for years led an anti-life campaign that has failed to stem the rapid rise in abortions nation-wide. These groups are so besotted by the flawed assumption that throwing countless condoms at the problem will solve it, that they have been deaf and blind to the shameful eradication of our weakest and most vulnerable – tens of thousands of unborn children.

At a time when there is a dearth of children available for adoption to loving a responsible parents who are unable to have their own, the State continues to fund the abortion industry while Right-to-Life relies on membership donations to call into account via the Courts, the out-of-control rate of abortions in this country and the actions of the monitoring body (ASC) set up to protect those unable to speak for themselves – our unborn.

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. deplores this blatant and unlawful attempt by ALRANZ and by extension the pro-abortion lobby, to exert pressure on the Court of Appeal, to pervert the course of justice. It believes that it is a shameful attempt to use Parliament to exert political pressure to interfere in the course of justice. ALRANZ’s press release headline was “MPs Must Oppose Anti-Abortion Legal Challenge” [Emphasis added].

In a democratic society it is a constant and mandatory requirement that the Judiciary should be free from political pressure and interference. Parliament must resist every attempt to pervert the course of justice. The Abortion Supervisory has a statutory duty to uphold the rule of law by ensuring that the abortion laws are complied with.

The matters before the Court of Appeal concern an appeal by the Abortion Supervisory Committee against the judgment of Justice Miller in the High Court in Wellington in June 2008. The Justice said that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” Justice Miller concluded that the Committee has “misinterpreted its functions and powers under the abortion law.” The Committee has incorrectly reasoned that the judgment in Wall v Livingston means it “ may not review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants.”

The media has correctly reported on the facts: Right to Life has cross appealed and is representing its case for legal recognition of the unborn child as a human being and a person endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being a right to life. The child, the weakest and most defenceless member of the human family, would then have the protection of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Section 8 states that, “no person shall be deprived of life except on such grounds as are established by law and are consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.” Right to Life is also seeking abortion counselling, independent from abortion providers

These matters are matters of law and ALRANZ should allow the judicial process to proceed unimpeded, in the expectation that the law, as intended by parliament, will be upheld and that justice will be done for the protection of women and their unborn children. Right to Life has acknowledged that ALRANZ genuinely believes that it is acting in the best interests of vulnerable women facing an unplanned pregnancy, tragically they are mistaken. However, it has argued that we do not help women by killing their children. A truly compassionate society will extend compassion and practical assistance for women by providing assistance to them to bring their children to birth. This assistance will save the lives of women from a lifetime of sorrow and psychological damage and their unborn babies from destruction.

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

http://www.righttolife.org.nz

Crown counsel acting for the Abortion Supervisory Committee has advised that the Committee has lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal.

This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Forrest Miller delivered on 9 June 2008 at the completion of a Judicial Review of the Abortion Supervisory Committee in the High Court in Wellington.

The judgment found that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants. Indeed the Committee itself has stated that the law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended”.Justice Miller stated that ; “In my opinion , the statistics and the Committee’s comments over the years since the Court of Appeal made that observation do give rise to powerful misgivings about the lawfulness of many abortions. They tend to confirm Dr Forster’s view that New Zealand essentially has abortion on request.” The Court held that the Committee does in fact have the power to review and scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and to require them to keep records and question them on the use of the mental health ground to authorise 98% of the abortions in New Zealand.

The Committee seeks the reversal of the judgment in respect to the following specific grounds.

It is claimed that there was no evidential foundation for the Judge’s findings that “There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.”

It is claimed that there was no evidential foundation for the Judge’s finding that “The approval rate [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under section 187A the consultants must form the good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health.”

The Committee claims that the Court erred in law in concluding that the Committee’s functions under the Act empower it to form its own opinion about the lawfulness of certifying consultant’s decisions.

Right to Life is confident that the Court of Appeal will uphold the judgment in respect to these important issues. It is the intention of Right to Life to cross appeal and re present our case denied in the High Court for the legal recognition of the status of the unborn child as a human being and a person endowed by its Creator with human rights, the foundation right being the right to life. Secondly there will be the opportunity to put before the Court of Appeal the issue which the Royal Commission considered important, whether abortion counsellors should be independent from abortion providers.

Right to Life had sought declaratory orders. The Committee has appealed to the Court of Appeal before Justice Miller had the opportunity to consider issuing orders in relation to the Committee’ function and duties. The question of orders is now a matter for the Court of Appeal to consider.

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Phone 03 3856111

Christchurch anti-abortion campaigner Ken Orr has laid a complaint with police after a video was posted on YouTube showing a gun being pointed at his head.

The video was posted a week ago by prochoicenz as a “message to Ken Orr right-to-life.org from the women of Aotearoa New Zealand”.

For more go to:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4601542a11.html

Copy of Letter [Media Reports Abridged]

The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

P.O. Box 13-683 Johnsonville

http://www.spcs.org.nz

Attention:

Ms Claudia Elliott

President Film and Literature Board of Review

C/- Owen Davie

Board Secretary

Department of Internal Affairs

Wellington

27 June 2008

Application for Interim Restriction Order against The Peaceful Pill Handbook (New Revised International Edition)

Dear Ms Elliott

The Society wishes to make a fresh application under s. 49 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”), for an Interim Restriction Order to be applied “as soon as practicable” to the restricted publication entitled The Peaceful Pill Handbook (New Revised International Edition) for the reason “that it is in the public interest to do so” [ss. 49(1) & 49(2) of the Act].

A careful and thorough consideration by the President of this new application is warranted because “definitive evidence” has now become available to establish that the book will shortly be distributed by Dr Nitschke for sale from at least 20 retail stores in New Zealand and displayed and sold by him at a seminar and workshop to be run in Christchurch and Dunedin on 5 & 6 July 2008 respectively. Five media reports are copied below and the relevant sections are highlighted providing part of this evidence. We can find no evidence that these events are strictly limited to participants who are at least aged 18 years of age. If you provide more evidence please contact me.

In your Decision No.3 dated 20 June 2008 in which you declined to grant an interim restriction order to the Society, you stated in par 77:

“There is no definitive evidence before me as to when The Peaceful Pill Handbook will be available for purchase from retail stores in New Zealand or how widely it will be stocked….”

It appears to us that you may have overlooked evidence that was provided to you. For example, in its application for leave to the Secretary dated 11 May 2008 – a copy of which supplied to the President to form part of our submission for interim restriction order – the Society stated:

“According to a report in the Sunday Star Times (11/05/08), this book contains “graphic descriptions of ways people can kill themselves” and “is set to go on sale in New Zealand within weeks”. It has been classified R18 by the Office of Film and Literature Classification, headed by Chief Censor, Bill Hastings.

The Sunday Star Times reports that Hastings said “it could significantly increase the risk of young people killing or harming themselves and had the potential to greatly disturb or shock them”.

Since your decision of 20 June was released I have been contacted by Jenny Ling, the Dominion Post journalist for an interview. She wrote two of the recent articles (copied below) dealing with the controversy involving Dr Nitschke’s book. She has confirmed that she has spoken personally to Dr Nitschke about his intentions to distribute the book in New Zealand and his planned seminars. He has confirmed, as reported, that copies of the book will be made available for sale at the forthcoming advertised seminar and workshop (5 & 6 July 2008) and distributed after that “till August” for sale in bookshops throughout the country.

Dr Nitschke is reported to be “thrilled” that the first application for an injunction was turned down by the President as “It gives us [Dr Nitschke and his partner] till August [2008] to get the book distributed” throughout New Zealand (Dom Post 26 June 2008). Here is a clear and unequivocal statement of his intention to distribute the book for sale in New Zealand..

The Board hearing on the book’s classification is to be heard on 25 August 2008 and we understand that Dr Nitschke and/or his counsel have been invited to make a written submission to the Board by 11 July 2008.

Please note the following highlighted definitive evidence pertinent to our application for an interim restriction order………

Fight continues to ban euthanasia book

By JENNY LING – The Dominion Post Thursday, 26 June 2008

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4597011a11.html

Pro-life groups trying to stop a euthanasia book from going on sale are vowing to fight on despite their latest efforts being rejected.

The Film and Literature Review Board declined last week requests by Right to Life and The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards for interim restriction orders on Australian euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The order would have stopped distribution to New Zealand shops till a review of chief censor Bill Hastings’ decision to allow its sale was heard…….

Dr Nitschke, founder of pro-euthanasia group Exit International, said copies would be available at a Christchurch conference on July 5 before being distributed to bookshops.

“We are thrilled the injunction has been turned down. It gives us till August to get the book distributed.”

Another workshop is to be held in Dunedin on July 6.

Dr Nitschke said his group was looking for a Dunedin venue after the original venue, the Kingsgate Hotel, cancelled the booking because of negative phone calls and fear of protests.

END

Pro-life appeal stalls sale of suicide book

JENNY LING – The Dominion Post Mon. 9 June

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4577055a11.html

A euthanasia  campaigner’s book outlining ways in which people can kill themselves could be banned for a second time if an appeal from pro-life advocates is upheld………

The book contains graphic details and diagrams about how to commit suicide and is banned in Australia.

It was banned in New Zealand last July but the Office of Film and Literature Classification lifted the ban on May 9 after the book was revised.

It was expected to be in bookshops this month but retailers are still awaiting their orders.

Yesterday, Dr Nitschke, an Australian euthanasia campaigner, said he was not impressed with the appeal.

The book would now not go on sale till after a conference called Voluntary Euthanasia Matters run by Exit International in Christchurch on July 5.

About 20 New Zealand bookshops had agreed to sell the book, including Dymocks in Auckland, he said.

Dymocks in Wellington and another leading retailer in the capital, Whitcoulls, said they had no plans to stock the book. “We don’t have it and we won’t be getting it,” a Dymocks spokeswoman said.

Wellington’s Unity Books said it had a significant number on order. “It’s an important book,” co-owner Tilly Lloyd said. “It might not be a book that sellers agree with, but it is important for customers who want it to be able to get it.”

Ashley Bell, co-owner of Insight Books in Upper Hutt, said he planned to have a few copies available.

Nitschke welcomes suicide book decision

AAP | Wednesday, 25 June 2008

http://stuff.co.nz/4595506a4501.html

Australian euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke has welcomed a decision by New Zealand authorities that will allow him to sell his controversial book in the country.

Nitschke said he was heartened by Friday’s decision to reject an application from pro-life groups, who wanted to stop the distribution of the Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The book, which describes how to commit suicide, was last year banned by New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC).

But its distribution was later allowed, as long as it was sold sealed, to people aged over 18.

Earlier this month, the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, and Right to Life New Zealand sought a fresh order restricting its distribution.

“The decision by the OFLC had demonstrated the open attitude of New Zealand to the important question of censorship,” Nitschke said in a statement today.

“New Zealand’s approach to censorship stands in stark distinction to the approach taken by the government in Australia, where the book remains a banned publication.”

Nitschke’s euthanasia group Exit International is due to hold a meeting in Christchurch next month, where it is expected the book will be sold.

_____________________________________________________________________

Dr Death’ to talk in Dunedin

By James Boucher on Fri, 6 Jun 2008

Banned in Australia and initially in New Zealand, Peter Nitschke co-authored The Peaceful Pill Handbook.

Dunedin civic leaders are remaining tight-lipped about a scheduled talk and euthanasia workshop in the city next month by Australia’s Dr Philip Nitschke, but a local advocate says there is enough interest here to warrant it……

Exit International Dunedin chapter leader Paula Westoby is charged with the task of promoting Dr Nitschke’s Dunedin workshop….

Dr Nitschke’s workshop is scheduled for Sunday, July 6, at the Kingsgate Hotel. Kingsgate Hotel management declined to comment when contacted by The Star.

Mrs Westoby said Dr Nitschke’s session would begin with a free hour long talk.

The talk would be followed by the opportunity to become an Exit International member for $50 and remain for a two hour workshop….

The Star

________________________________________________________________________

The Society has contacted Mrs Paula Westoby (Tel. [deleted] in Dunedin who belongs to the Dunedin Chapter of Exit International and was mentioned in The Star’s article (above) dated 6 June 2008.

She has confirmed that Dr Nitsche will make available – distribute/sell copies of his book at an Exit International Seminar being held in Christchurch at the Hotel SO on Saturday 5 July 2008.

[Hotel SO - Inner-city Christchurch accommodation offering affordable style and ... 165 Cashel St, Christchurch |; 0508 165 165 |; info@hotelso.co.nz

http://www.hotelso.co.nz/Home ].

Westoby has confirmed that the organisers of the Exit International workshop, which was to be held at the Kingsgate Hotel in Dunedin, are seeking a new venue after Kingsgate management refused to stage the seminar following numerous complaints from the public about Dr Nitschke holding a workshop there that promotes suicide. His books will be for sale at the Dunedin event.

On 23 June 2008 the Society contacted Ashley Bell, co-owner of Insight Books in Upper Hutt [131 Main St, Tel. 939-2976], – the man who is reported to have said that he planned to have a few copies available. [Dom Post 9 June 08]. He says he has received “about a dozen orders” for the book.

The Society has also contacted Wellington’s Unity Books co-owner who said on 23 June that they have “18 special orders” recorded for the book, meaning 18 people have committed to buy it and they are awaiting receipt of the book sometime after 5 July 2008. They have told us it will be available for purchase directly from their shelves “shortly”.

Public interest issues

The Society has already supplied the President with comprehensive documentation showing that a significant proportion of New Zealanders ages 18 years of age and over are vulnerable to injury through exposure they might have to The Peaceful Pill Handbook due to their mental state etc. We request that all this information be made available to interested parties who request it and that it all be taken into consideration in this current order application.

The concept of “in the public interest” found in section 49 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Act 1993 (“the Act”) is derived from The Cinematograph Film Act 1961 – “any other considerations it [the censor] considers relevant affecting the public interest”. The latter concept, as McMullin J. ruled, is different from the more general concept of “the interests of the public generally” found in other legislation (see Licensing Authority and Another [1978] 1 NZLR 851 McMullin J.]. [Emphasis added].

The Society contends that the book in question should be classified “objectionable” and if this is to be the determination of the Board, then the distribution of this book for sale in bookshops around the country by Dr Nitschke, is by definition “likely to be injurious to the public good” based on the section 3(1) definition of “objectionable” found in the Act and reasons set out in our earlier submissions. It therefore follows that the imposition of an interim restriction order would prevent likely injury through the distribution of the book until such time as the Board completes its review.

As McKenzie J. stated, section 49 of the Act provides the President with a “prophylactic jurisdiction” that is “designed to preserve the status quo” AND such an order forms part of the statutory process. However, Dr Nitschke rejects the right of the Society to seek the relief such an order provides because he knows it will curtail has stated plans to distribute the book for sale in New Zealand from 5 July 2008 onwards. He appears to be motivated purely by self-interest and commercial gain (Hundreds of people have committed suicide after being influenced by his book).

The effect of an interim restriction order will be to impede importation for supply or distribution of the book, impede supply or distribution to another person, and possession for the purpose of supply or distribution and display. This is exactly what it is designed to do to safeguard the interests of the public and ensure that genuine relief is provided to the review applicant.

Some years ago Hammond J. granted the Society an order in relation to the film Baise-Moi and ruled that the distributor was “chancing its arm” in promoting a film that might be ruled objectionable. He saw merit in granting an order as it served in his view, to protect the integrity of the classification process. The same reasoning can be applied with respect to the granting of an order with respect to The Peaceful Pill Handbbook.

If Dr Nitschke is allowed to distribute his book throughout New Zealand prior to the completion of the Board’s review, the review process will, in the Society’s view, be “rendered nugatory” (per Mackenzie J. par [31] referred to in the President’s decision dated 20 June 2008). To argue otherwise is to commit a serious legal error given the clear definitive evidence provided by the Society that the book is shortly to go on sale throughout New Zealand following Dr Nitschke’s seminar/workshop involvement in Christchurch and Dunedin on 5 & 6 July 2008.

Dr Nitschke’s book was intercepted by NZ Customs officials in late January 2008. He did not pay the normal classification fee of about $1,200 as he did not submit it for classification under s. 13(1)(c) of the Act. He was clearly “chancing [his] arm” (to use the phrase used by Hammond J.) in attempting to bring a book that had been banned in New Zealand and Australia, into this country from Australia.

The President has stated that the redacted version, the subject of the Society’s current order application, “was voluntarily submitted for classification [by Dr Nitschke] without being legally required to do so” (Par. 23, Decision 20 June 2008). This is not correct and will need to be brought to the attention of the High Court in any further legal proceedings relating to this order application.

The President appears to have relied on misconstrued the submission from the Chief Censor’s Office on this point, which she summarises in her decision of 20 June at par 23:

“The book was voluntarily submitted for classification without being legally required to do so. The book has been redacted.”

This statement is in error, or at best misleading.

One copy of the book The Peaceful Pill Handbook (New Revised International Edition) was submitted on 5 February 2008, by the Comptroller of Customs, to the OFLC under s13(1)(a) for a decision on its classification (Ref. 1).1

It was NOT submitted by Dr Nitschke himself or his agent. He claimed to media, after being reportedly held for three hours in detention by NZ Customs officials at the airport, that he brought the books into the country for the purpose of submitting them to the Chief Censor for classification. This may be so, but the fact remains that he never paid the application fee of about $1,200 to have the book classified and there is no documentary evidence to establish that he or his counsel wrote to the Chief Censor Bill Hastings indicating that his intention was to bring the book into the country for the purpose of submitting it for classification (the Society has obtained all relevant documentation from the OFLC using the Official Information Act).

In a document dated 1 February 2008 from Helen Veysey, Investigator, Investigations & Response, NZ Customs Service Auckland, addressed to Avril Miles, Operations Analyst, NZ Customs Service, Wellington it states:

Referral of publication to the OFLC for Classification

Please find enclosed the following publications for referral to the Office of Film and Literature Classification. These publications have been detained for examination pursuant to section 152 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 -

‘The Peaceful Pill Handbook’

This publication was classified as objectionable in June 2007, OFLC No; 700240

The Classification Office has requested the publications be submitted under Section 13(3) of the Films, Videos & publications Classification Act 1993.

The importers are:

Philip Nitschke

C/- Quest Ponsonby, 68 Ponsonby Rd, Ponsonby…………..”

_______________________________________________________________

It was the Chief Censor “on his own motion [who] determine[d] that [this] publication should be received for examination by the Classification Office.” (see s. 13(3) of the Act). It was the Chief Censor who, by way of a notice in writing, who directed the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service or the Secretary to take all reasonable steps to obtain a copy of the publication and submit it to the classification Office.

Clearly, the intentions of Dr Nitschke as reported in the New Zealand media and the evidence ‘on the ground’ must be taken into account by the President. Dr Nitschke is coming to New Zealand shortly to gain all the media attention and publicity he can garner for the purpose of selling and distributing his books that the Society contends should be classified “objectionable”.

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

1. Letter dated 7/02/08 from Bill Hastings, Chief Censor, Office of Film and Literature Classification to Avril Miles, Operations Analyst, Intelligence Planning and Coodination Group, New Zealand, Customs Service P.O. Box 2218 Wellington.

By JENNY LING – The Dominion Post Thursday, 26 June 2008

Pro-life groups trying to stop a euthanasia book from going on sale are vowing to fight on despite their latest efforts being rejected.

The Film and Literature Review Board declined last week requests by Right to Life and The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards for interim restriction orders on Australian euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The order would have stopped distribution to New Zealand shops till a review of chief censor Bill Hastings’ decision to allow its sale was heard.

Both groups are seeking a review of the decision in which Mr Hastings allowed the sale of the book to over-18s. A hearing is set down for August 25.

David Lane, executive director of The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, said the group would apply for another restriction order.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4597011a11.

Right to Life spokesman Ken Orr said he was disappointed by the decision. The group would present a submission to the August hearing asking that the book be deemed objectionable and be banned.

The book, which outlines ways people can kill themselves, has sparked concern that it will encourage depressed teens and the elderly to commit suicide.

It was banned in New Zealand last year but the Office of Film and Literature Classification lifted the ban after it was revised. It was given an R18 rating and must be sealed when sold.

Dr Nitschke, founder of pro-euthanasia group Exit International, said copies would be available at a Christchurch conference on July 5 before being distributed to bookshops.

“We are thrilled the injunction has been turned down. It gives us till August to get the book distributed.”

Another workshop is to be held in Dunedin on July 6.

Dr Nitschke said his group was looking for a Dunedin venue after the original venue, the Kingsgate Hotel, cancelled the booking because of negative phone calls and fear of protests.

Related articles:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/31/2151542.htm

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23139039-401,00.html