“Young girls having their innocence stolen” by Paula McDowell, Year 10, of Tauraroa  Area School.

“Overdose of bare flesh corrupts our kids” by Zhan Ye Chen, Year 13, Hamilton Boys’ High School, and

“Ears burn from dirty songs”,  Jacqueline Yee, Year 10, of St. Cuthbert’s College.

As a registered charity SPCS seeks to promote the spiritual and moral welfare of communities and it has as one of its objectives:

“To foster public awareness of the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of community standards and to encourage constructive debate and discussion in this area.”

The Society applauds the young writers of these articles for boldly expressing views that run counter to the liberal mindset found in much mainstream media. Surely it is a sick mindset that champions the gratuitous depiction of promiscuity, pornography and the pestilence of moral vices involving prostitution, pimping and drug-taking, dished up with a regular deluge of obscenities; all for the sake of public entertainment.

The Society also has another objective “To support responsible freedom of expression that does not injure the public good”.

The Society applauds the three NZ Herald writers for their creativity and for being able to responsibly and freely express their opinions. It applauds the NZ Herald for allowing such views to be expressed in a Society where many officials in government agencies, including Crown entities as well as media commentators and academics, regularly seek to vilify conservatives who wish to point out the negative impact and toxic effect of the tidal wave of immorality that engulfs our community.

The corruption and harm associated with the “overdose of bare flesh” (porn sleaze) and “dirty” (obscene) lyrics, thrust upon the community – kids included – by pornographers and musical ‘artists’, is decried by all those who, like the Society seek to uphold community standards – “encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person”.

“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

In a human society penalties are imposed for criminal wrongdoing because
there are laws, codes and ordinances that must be obeyed. In the moral
sphere, a guilt-stricken person, is under a form of sentence because an
inner universal law understood by most New Zealanders has declared a verdict
and the realisation of the truth has impacted on the inner man.

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.

Barnardos’ media release [on their 'research' - used to promote their Yes Vote Campaign in the Citizen's Initiated Referendum] says it asked kids about whether adults should be able to claim a legal defence for assault. They lied. They asked if adults should be let off. But if these adults are not parents or caregivers of the smacked kid they never had a legal defence [to be let off], ever. Let off means a case is dropped or they’re discharged without conviction – not merely being found not guilty. The Barnardos release also says:

Importantly, many of the callers suggested that parents should be let off with a warning or community service if they perpetrated low levels of violence against children.

How many? well, just one actually! The report provides all comments provided by the kids – quoting just 10 children, although it does provide some statements that counsellors said the kids had made. But ONLY ONE said parents should be let off with a warning, and NONE said parents should be charged, let alone prosecuted or have community service.

Barnardos should really stop lying to the media.

For more go to : http://big-news.blogspot.com/2009/06/barnardos-ask-kids-about-smacking-and.html

Murdered boy endured final weeks of torture
Saturday May 16, 2009
By Beck Vass

….. For the seven days before Duwayne Pailegutu died, he was kept inside his mother and stepfather’s small flat in Nelson – so no one could see he had been beaten so badly he was paralysed, incontinent, and slowly suffocating on his own blood.

The left side of his body was disabled after repeated blows to the right side of his head which caused a stroke, and he struggled to eat or drink.

In addition to the haemorrhage, an autopsy found at least 10 deep bruises to his scalp – some of them inflicted by the shoes of his stepfather as the little boy cowered in the corner of his Fergusson St bedroom.

A further 75 bruises were found over the rest of his small body.

For the week before he died, Duwayne sat, partially paralysed and fitted with nappies, slowly suffocating on blood which he inhaled into his lungs as he vomited during “exercises” in which his stepfather made repeated blows to his stomach to make him cough up blood.

In an attempt to “shock” Duwayne into movement, Joachim dipped his paralysed foot into boiling water, leaving the largest of four scald wounds on his right leg……

When he became frustrated that Duwayne could not move, Joachim threw him against a wall.

And for the six weeks before his death on July 2 last year, Duwayne had been living with three broken ribs.

For full report: see:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10572666

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

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

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

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

Reference:

Dominion Post 25-26 October 2008

Suicide toll surpasses road deaths

by Lane Nichols

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

Judge Shaw rejected the ERA ruled that employer, Arthur D Riley & Co., had “a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach” to its policy against accessing and transmitting “inappropriate material” via the internet/intranet because other staff who she had forwarded an offensive and sexually explicit email on to, had not been disciplined as she had. The ERA also ruled the images were not as objectionable as the company claimed. However, Judge Shaw commended the company for its fair and reasonable approach to the disciplinary action and the clarity of its policies and negated the ERA compensation payout.

In its Business Update e-newsletter published soon after the ERA decision was released in 2007, employer lobby group Business NZ scoffed at the authority’s suggestion that the company could have gone to the Chief Censor’s Office – The Office of Film and Literature Classification – for an “objective view” of the email.

“The thought of companies all over New Zealand having to run to the official censor [Bill Hastings] to rule on employees’ naughty emails is a humorous one,” it said. “But more important, the ruling raises the question of a company’s right to set its own standards, both for the protection of staff and protection of the company’s image and brand … Why shouldn’t companies have the right to set and maintain standards of appropriate workplace behaviour?” [Ref. 1]

The Society points out that much of the inappropriate, lewd, racist and obscene email content that gets passed around some workplace computers by employees, would hardly raise the eyelids of the Chief Censor Bill Hastings and his Deputy Nicola McCully, who have sanctioned films like Baise-Moi, Visitor Q and Irreversible, featuring lengthy, explicit and gratuitous scenes of brutal rape, necrophilia, etc. for adult film festivals. These censors have approved truckloads of grossly offensive sexually explicit and gratuitous DVDs and videos for home adult entertainment and the public cinema, that demean, degrade and dehumanise women.

For a static computer image or images (such as those forwarded to work colleagues via email by Miss Wood) to be classified “objectionable” by the Chief Censor’s Office the image(s) must feature content extending way beyond mere adult nudity, racial slurs, exposed adult private parts etc. Generally, it would have to promote and support activities such as paedophilia, sexual violence, etc. before the Chief Censor’s Office would even consider ruling it “objectionable”, thereby banning it.

What the general public considers grossly offensive – in terms of sexual content – often bears little if any relationship with the judgment of the Chief Censor’s Office. However, occasionally the Society has been pleasantly surprised – as when the Office recently banned the blasphemous and offensive “Cradle of Filth” T-shirt.

References

Ref. 1. Censoring makes sense, but only if it’s consistent, by Simon Hendery:

The General Manager of Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, Garth Mickell, says a level of common sense has been applied in the decision by the Employment Court which has found that his company was justified in dismissing an employee.

The case, which was originally an appeal against a decision from the Employment Relations Authority, involved the dismissal of an employee for forwarding offensive images by e-mail to internal and external recipients.

Ms Wood forwarded an email containing pictures of naked people, having twice previously been warned about similar behaviour.

Mr Mickell says his company has only applied the terms of employment and policies that Ms Wood had signed, and she had been warned about on more than one occasion.

“It has been a long and costly process, but we could not let the ERA ruling stand as is, due to the ongoing impact it may have on employment disputes. Each and every employment environment is different and this ruling allows this to be taken into account.” 

The Employment Court held that the company was justified in dismissing the employee because of the relatively conservative nature of the workplace, the clarity of the company’s policies as to what constituted unacceptable behaviour, that previous warnings had been given, and because of the employee’s actions.

The Court also held that in situations where an employer does not strictly apply its own policies, this does not necessarily disentitle it from pursuing disciplinary action.

Blair Scotland, from EMA  Legal who represented Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd, says this case is important for employers as it highlights that individual organisations can have their own moral codes and standards, and can enforce these.

“Section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 does not require a ‘one size fits all’ approach to an employer’s standards, so that behaviour deemed acceptable in the local mechanic’s workshop may not necessarily be acceptable at the childcare centre down the road,” Mr Scotland said.

ENDS

The Society is delighted that the Employment Court in Wellington has recently issued a robust landmark decision that defends the rights of employers to enforce any company rules they have prohibiting their employees from accessing, downloading, uploading, saving, requesting, transmitting, storing or purposely viewing sexual, pornographic, obscene, racist, profane or other offensive and inappropriate material, using the workplace internet or intranet. The Court’s decision overturns a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) issued last year that was extensively covered in the media and featured in July 2007 on John Campbell’s TV3 Nightline programme.

“Employers have always had a right to dismiss employees who breach company policies relating to conduct in the workplace,” says Society Executive Director David Lane. “However, this Court decision, Arthur D Riley & Co Limited v Jessica Sharon Wood (WC 18/08; WRC 25/07) issued by Judge CM Shaw on 8 October 2008, underlines in case law, for the first time I am aware of, the rights of employers to tie their company policies to their own community/workplace standards in relation to objectonable/pornographic or offensive content, without relying on the liberal and flaky definition of what constitutes offensive and obscene content issued regularly by the Chief Censor’s Office – the so-called enlightened  ‘objective view’. Of course companies must set out fair and reasonable procedures that allow an employer to effectively deal with breaches of conduct in the use of the internet, clearly define inappropriate content and notify and warn employees of the consequences of all misconduct.”

Employment Court Judge Coral M Shaw has overturned an earlier determination that was issued by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that upheld a wrongful dismissal claim by a Wellington woman Miss Jessica Sharon Wood against her employer Arthur D Riley & Co Lts (ADR). The substantial financial compensation awarded her by the ERA, made against ADR, has now been negated by the Employment Court which has ruled that all of it (paid in full by ADR into the Court, pending appeal result) – 75% of her lost wages from 18 September 2006 to January 2007 and $9,000 damages for humiliation – must be returned with interest to the plaintiff (ADR). The Court has reversed the decision of the ERA by now reserving costs in favour of the plaintiff, which has 28 days from the date of the Court’s decision, 8 October, to submit its claims against Miss Wood.

The Society Director David Lane praises Mr Garth Mickell, Director of a private electricity and water metering business, Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd (ADR), the plaintiff, for challenging the appallingly incompetent and flawed decision issued last year by Mr Denis Asher of the ERA.

In an email dated 10 October Mickell wrote to the Society:

“First thank you for your support, and advise. Attached for your reference is the employment court determination. We are thankful that commonsense has prevailed, and there is now the ability of places of work to be able to determine their level of  morality and ethics, without influence from central government.”

To reiterate: employers now have a right, recognised by the Employment Court, to enforce company policy relating to what they consider constitutes objectionable/pornographic or offensive content without having to get an “objective” determination from the Chief Censor’s Office. Employers can also determine what constitutes “serious misconduct” relating to such material without having to have the liberal Chief Censor’s Office effectively negate the fair and reasonable community standards they seek to uphold in the workplace.

Some Details on the Case

The Employment Court  overturned a determination issued by the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) that Miss Wood had been wrongly dismissed as an employee of Arthur D Riley & Co Ltd [ADR] on 18 September 2006, for serious misconduct including breaching its clear internet/intranet policy, by forwarding on to fellow employees and friends in government departments, a “joke email” on the subject of “Eleven Most hot People!!!!!!!” (sic), containing offensive sexual content, which she had received from her father Graeme Wood a Wellington City Council employee. The email contained offensive images including those of completely nude obese middle aged men and an elderly women and explicit depictions of a man’s genitalia.

The ERA determination made by Denis Asher stated: “The images were clearly designed to shock and ridicule, as evidenced by the subject title and the phrase employed by Ms Wood when she forwarded it,. . . namely ‘ewww’.”

Mr Asher said the company had “a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach to its email policy”. He also deemed the pictures were not as objectionable as Mr Mickell made them out to be and that his views were “unsustainable”. “Something more concrete is required than Mr Mickell and his colleagues’ personal views,” Mr Asher said. He implied that because Mr Mickell had not submitted the emails to the Chief Censor’s Office for classification and thereby ‘proved; that they were in fact “objectionable” under s. 3 of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993, he (Mickell) could not possibly sustain his company’s view that they were offensive. In the Employment Court Judge Shaw rejected this argument advanced by Counsel for Miss Wood.

Mr Asher also made the bizarre and erroneous ruling that because the other employees of the company who had received Ms Wood’s email had not been disciplined, the company was not being fair.  The Court’s ruling notes that it is not the innocent recipient of “objectionable” or offensive content that breaks the law or company policy, but rather the disseminator of such content.

The Society strongly urged Mr Mickell in 2007 to appeal the ERA decision, which it considered seriously flawed. The ERA had ruled that Mr Mickell’s company had a significantly flawed and less than consistent approach to its internet and email policy and its application was not fair and consistent. The Court rejected these findings that run counter to all the facts of the case and rejected the criticism that it had failed to advance any “objective criteria” as to what constituted objectionable/pornographic or offensive material, but rather had relied only on colleagues’ personal views.

The Society is delighted that the Chief Censor’s Office was shut out of this dispute and that its liberal agenda has not been allowed to corrupt this important Employment Court ruling.

LATEST MEDIA REPORTS

NZPA Story: Otago Daily Times Sat, 11 Oct 2008

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/26854/employment-court-overturn-ruling-dismissal-over-email

___________________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND TO CASE PRIOR TO APPEAL

Employment Relations – a legal update Serious misconduct

Written by Jennifer Mills, Aaron Lloyd, Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Monday, 27 August 2007

3rd Annual HR Directors’ Forum

http://www.conferenz.co.nz/employment-relations-a-legal-update-6.html

139.    The test of justification set out in section 103A of the ERA is applicable to a wide range of decisions or actions by employers, including when identifying and evaluating alleged serious misconduct.

142.    If an employer has not made reasonable inquiries into an allegation of serious misconduct prior to reaching a conclusion, then any decision to dismiss is likely to be unjustified.   An employer will be evaluated on the reasonableness of his or her belief that the employee was guilty of the serious misconduct alleged, based generally on the investigative process undertaken to establish this belief, including the provision of an opportunity for the employee to answer the complaint.

143.    In respect of substantive justification, the Courts will usually apply a two-stage approach to the question of whether a dismissal is justified:
(a)    Did the misconduct amount to serious misconduct; and
(b)    Was dismissal what a fair and reasonable employer would have done bearing in mind in of all the circumstances at the time?
144.    With procedural fairness in such cases, the usual rules apply.  However, employers should note that an employee should be advised at the outset of an investigation that the process might result in him/her being summarily dismissed.
Wood v Arthur D Riley & Co Limited (unreported, WA96/07, 9 July 2007)

145.    A recent Employment Relations Authority determination, Wood v Arthur D Riley & Co Limited considered the test of justification in section 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in a summary dismissal situation.  The case involved an employee, Jessica Wood, who forwarded, via her work email, an email she had earlier received from her father misleadingly entitled “Eleven most hot people!!!!!”.  Some individuals depicted were obese; another image appeared to have a woman’s head transposed onto the body of a male body-builder.  The Authority noted that the aim of the email was to shock and ridicule.

146.    In summarily dismissing Ms Wood, the company relied on its house rules (employment polices) which provided that a breach of the Internet and Email Policy amounted to serious misconduct.  The Internet and Email Policy provided that computers were to be used only for business purposes, and prohibited employees from transmitting or storing obscene, pornographic or offensive material. Further, the policy provided that what constituted offensive material was to be determined by the company in its sole discretion.

147.    Despite the company’s clear policies, and the fact that Ms Wood had received earlier warnings about inappropriate email usage and professionalism in the workplace generally, the Authority was of the opinion that the company’s decision to dismiss did not meet the test of justification in section 103A.

148.    The Authority emphasised that the company could not simply rely on its policies or house rules to assert justification for Ms Wood’s summary dismissal.  The application of any policy was subject to the test of justification in section 103A requiring an objective assessment by a fair and reasonable employer. Just because the company’s policy provided that certain behaviour amounted to serious misconduct, did not automatically mean that such behaviour did constitute serious misconduct. The rationale for this view is that section 103A requires an employer to decide whether dismissal is fair in all the circumstances.

149.    The Authority did not look favourably on the company’s flawed and inconsistent approach to enforcing its internet and email policy.  The Authority noted that in reality the company accepted a significant measure of personal email usage notwithstanding its policy that email and internet be used for business purposes only.  Accordingly, other employees had not been disciplined in relation to storing Ms Wood’s email in contravention of the Internet and Email policy.

150.    Further, the Authority was not convinced that a fair and reasonable employer would have considered the email offensive.  The Authority noted that Ms Wood had received the email from her father, a person she could reasonably expect to rely on in determining what was or was not offensive.  Ms Wood’s father was employed by a major local body whose computer filtering program had not picked up the email.  The Authority was of the view that the company had not advanced enough objective criteria that the images were offensive.  The Authority considered that the company’s reliance on arguments that, for example, pictures of obese people would offend other obese people was insufficient evidence that the email was offensive.

151.    The Authority concluded that the company had relied too heavily on its own views as to what constituted offensive material, and its decision to dismiss did not reflect on what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all the circumstances at the time.

152.    Ms Wood was awarded reimbursement for lost wages, and $12,000 in compensation for hurt and humiliation.  However both these awards were discounted by 25% to reflect Ms Wood’s contribution