http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12004926/porn-study-grant-worth-790-000/

Comment: One of the objects for which the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc., (“SPCS”) was established was to focus public attention on the harmful nature of pornography. For the purposes of section 3 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“the Act”), “a publication is objectionable if it descibes, depicts, expresses, or otherwise deals with matters of sex, horror, crime, cruelty, or violence in such a manner that the availabliity of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good.”

The Act recognises that children and young persons, in particular, are vulnerable to the harmful effects of exposure to pornography – hence age restrictions are imposed by the censors on poronographic publications and others are banned. The “extent and degree to which, and the manner in which the publication depicts…  sexual conduct of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning sexual conduct” is one criterion used to determine whether or not it is to be classified objectionable.

Family First NZ, a charity registered with the Charities Commission, has also been at the forefront of highlighting the offensive nature of hardcore pornograhy and documenting how it is injurious to the public good.

Denise Richie, director of Stop the Demand Foundation, another charity registered with the Charities Commission, put it this way, in her submission to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) , as part of  her complaint against a “mobile billboard” displayed prominently in a public place – promoting the Erotica Lifestyles Expo:

“The image is designed to simulate a woman with her fingers in her [******] It is standard Steve Crow fare, with its focus on dehumanising women and reducing them to their genitalia”. (ASA decision dated 14/09/2010 concerning complaint 10/448).

(Eden Digital Ltd, directed up until recently by John Malcolm Carr, which owned the license for Erotica Lifestyles Expo, was put into liquidation on 22 November 2011).

The Society (SPCS), as part of its objects, seeks “to support freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.” Hardcore pornography has the effect degrading, dehumanising and demeaning women. Its negative impact on viewers of such material has been well-documented in the literature.

“If their mothers could see them, they’d shut the festival down tomorrow,” the officer in charge of the event, Sergeant Kevin Basher, said.

Martinborough residents have joined him in warning that the once-civilised wine lovers’ event is now a mass booze-up that risks spilling into violence.

Mr Basher, who called Sunday’s event the worst in seven years, said yesterday that steel container “drunk tanks” might have to be used in future and that officers might need to carry batons to counter unruly drunks….

Festival organisers met police yesterday after reports of at least a dozen brawls. One man was admitted to hospital after being knocked unconscious.

A Martinborough local said The Square was full of drunks on Sunday night. “The atmosphere was getting quite nasty. It’s not the Toast it used to be.”

Police say some wineries appear to have breached liquor licencing laws by continuing to serve people who are clearly intoxicated. One vineyard encouraged festival-goers to scull full glases of wine.

“We’re still seeing people who are grossly intoxicated, especially young women falling all over the place in various states of disrepair [defecating] everywhere and covered in blood,” Mr Basher said.

A dompost.co.nz poll yesterday asked if drunken behaviour at Toast Martinborough was out of control.

Of more than 900 respondents, 55.3 per cent agreed, saying it was not pleasant when so many people were drunk. Another 36.9 per cent said it was just the actions of a few and everyone else had a great time. Nearly 8 per cent were undecided. The survey concluded that the event was “Out of Control”

Toast Martinborough chairman Richard Riddiford, who started the event 20 years ago, played down the alcohol problems. “We’re talking about a very, very, small percentage of [the 11,500] festival-goers.

[Clearly neither the police who attended nor 55.3% of the 900 responddents to the Dompost survey, attempted to "play down the alcohol problems", as Mr Riddiford did].

Source: “Police warn of ‘feral’ festival, The Dominion Post, Tuesday, November 22, 2011, p. 1.

Speaking in pidgin English,via a translator, he stated: “I am a very passionate man,” and “I do haf a verry beeg reeespect for sex.”

Gordon writes:

He is passionately pro-life, and last year filmed a video expressing his views which, when posted on the web, was hailed by anti-abortion campaigners as “one of the most beautiful, authentic things ever seen”.

In it, Bocelli sits at a piano and tells the camera that he wants to recount a “little story” about a young pregnant woman who is admitted to hospital with a misdiagnosed case of appendicitis. After tests, “the doctors advised her to abort the child. They told her that would be the best solution because the child would doubtless be born with some kind of disability. But the courageous young wife decided not to terminate the pregnancy, and the child was born. The woman was my mother, I was the child”.

Bocelli was born with sight problems and was eventually diagnosed with congenital glaucoma. At the age of 12, he went completely blind after an accident during a football game….

His views on abortion are well rehearsed, and he has heard about British MP Nadine Dorries and her recent attempt to strip termination clinics of their conselling roles. He interrupts the translator as she relays my question and says very firmly, which I repeat in full here: “You ask me before of my point of view about religion, and I told you I am very religious. It means that before I fight against something, I try to fight in favour of something.

“It is not Christian to go against someone. I am in favour of life. And, of course, personally I do not share the idea of being able to interrupt life arbitrarily. But I cannot be the judge of those who decide in a different way. As much as I can, I show them an example and act as a role model, because I believe this is the only way.”

Source: Article (abridged)

He’s ‘very passionate’  but no bunga bunga please.

Based on interview with Andrea Bocelli by Bryony Gordon, Telegraph Group

Reprinted in The Dominion Post. 19 Novembr 2011, B5.

Mahon, who calls himself a socialist, says he hopes the image “will simply make people curious”. He wants to “put a bunch of ‘Key crtimes’ on to one ring,” he told the Sunday Star Times.

“The painting shows Key’s body slumped against a wall in an alley with a rifled wallet beside him. A half-empty wine bottle, a rat and a half-eaten apple are among the detritus nearby.

Viewers are invited to discover Key’s “killer” by viewing 24 video clues embedded on the picture, most of which are interviews with Key taken from the web. People who guess the killer will be eligible for prizes including a Mahon cast bronze of a dying dove (
“a metaphor for dying hopes”).

Asked if he was worried that people would find the image offensive, Mahon said: “All art is expression and metaphor and the job artists have is to make people feel uncomfortable. Now once you’ve made people uncomfortable you’ve got their attention. And once you’ve got their attention you can begin to change their mind.”

The image will be put on Mahon’s website tomorrow and the names of those who guessed the killer will be posted on election day, Novemberr 26.

Story by Anthony Hubbard (abridged) Sunday Star Times. Page 1, November 13, 2011

Comment: One of the objects of the SPCS is:

“To support responsible freedom of expression which does not injure the public good be degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.” (S. 2[f] of SPCS Constitution).

The Society contends that the vast majority of New Zealanders would consider Sam Mahon’s image of our Prime Minister John Key and its use in an “interact game” on his website, as outlined above, highly offensive. It deliberately seeks to degrade, dehumanise and demean John Key over the next few weeks leading up to the elections.

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

The Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that the defendent, aged 29, must meet the CAC’s actual and reasonable cost associated with the disciplinary proceeding and pay half the Tribunal’s costs.  

“Teachers have a special status as leaders and should be respected – especially by our children,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Modeling and selling naked photos to a pornographic magazine doesn’t meet that standard. Associating the photos with her profession of teaching children is also unacceptable.

“These sexually explicit photos of the teacher have been published and are now in the public domain. The combined role of porn star and primary school teacher simply doesn’t fit for many families. Parents would be just as concerned if a teacher was coming to school topless or teaching that pornographic magazines are harmless.

“There is a strong social stigma against pornography, and pornographic magazines such as Penthouse – for good reason. The welfare, protection and moral innocence of our children must come first.

“The issue is not whether it’s legal or not. As part of earning the respect that they deserve, they need to be aware that their personal principles and profession can not necessarily be separated,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“To pose for a porn magazine simply lets the side down.”

ENDS

See: www.familyfirst.org.nz

SECRET PAPERS obtained under the Official Information Act reveal the government has allowed fishermen from poor countries to be exploited in New Zealand waters. New Zealand officials have long been aware of the slave labour and conditions but there have been no prosecutions…. Workers are fishing in rusting boats turned into high seas sweatshops that take large parts of the country’s $1.4 billion-a-year catch.

The government papers reveal that thousands of men from poor areas are beaten and forced to work for days without rest, earning between $260 and $460 a month before paying much of it over to “agents”. Chief executive of Nelson’s Talley’s Fisheries, Peter Peter Talley, said the government knew what was happening but had responded only by setting basic standards for onboard observers. “They do not care about the Filipinos, Indonesians and Ukrainians on the vessels.”

Full story: Slavery at sea exposed by Michael Field. Sunday Star Times, 3 April 2011. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4841777/Slavery-at-sea-exposed

What is prostitution really like for the person in it? Recently The Economist ran a debate online about legalising prostitution. Putting the case against was San Francisco psychologist Melissa Farley, who is also the founder of Prostitution Research and Education. In view of the relentless campaign to legalise prostitution on the ground that it would then be essentially harmless and a matter of choice, MercatorNet invited Dr Farley to set out the facts of the matter as she knows them from 15 years of research and dealings with prostituted and trafficked women.

Source: MercatorNet 18 October 2010 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_real_harms_of_prostitution

[Note. One of the Society's objectives is: "To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequence of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornograhy and violence." Society members have analysed the extensive publications of Dr Melissa Farley relating to prostitution in preparing submissions over the last few years to City Councils on proposed by-law changes relating to the control of prostitution].

Porn king Steve Crow’s latest affront to society – a moving billboard displaying an image of a “woman’s naked pelvic area with a halved melon” positioned in front of it – has been banned by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board.

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/4238566/Porn-kings-billboard-banned

The woman appears to be “simulating female masturbation”, says the ASCB.

The advertisement was strategically placed on a mobile billboard and towed around Auckland’s streets in the lead up to Crow’s annual Erotica Lifestyles Expo during August. The Erotica website said the company’s phones had run hot with calls from people either loving or hating the ad.

The billboard was also shown on 3News coverage of the Boobs on Bikes parade in downtown Auckland on August 11.

The ASCB has upheld 71 complaints from the public over the ad which the complainants say was “indecent, offensive, discriminatory and ‘dehumanising’”.

One complainant says the advertisement was “standard Steve Crow fare with its focus on dehumanising women and reducing them to their genitalia”.

The ASCB agreed, saying the advertisement “not only offended against generally prevailing community standards, it was more than likely to cause serious or widespread offence taking into account the context, medium and audience”.

The board was unanimous in its view that the advertisement was degrading to women.

In response to the complaints, advertiser Eden Digital told the board it was resigned if not in agreement with the ad’s banning.

“The complaints seem pretty much the same old same old puritanical nonsense from a very small sample of the population.

“At the end of the day the photo used on the billboard is nothing more than a naked woman holding a piece of fruit in front of her pelvic area … but I have long since learned that the ASA gives more weight to the ranting of the conservative minority than common sense or the silent opinion of the masses.”

“But the billboard that expo organiser Steve Crow unveiled this week is of a different order [to the parade] altogether. By any measure, the image is objectionable in a public context and you don’t have to be a purse-lipped prude to think so.

“Puerile and dismally witless, it is also quite calculatedly offensive because it seeks not to attract those who are interested but to outrage those who are not.

“Hard-core pornography  – You know it when you see it … it is beyond distasteful and truly offensive

“Crow is terribly pleased with himself because of all the publicity he’s received. But the rest of us should make it plain what we think of this sort of cynical marketing.”

For full article see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10666077