Media Release 23 March 2017
The petition calling on politicians to investigate the public health effects and societal harms of pornography has reached almost 10,000 signatures, with still another week for petitions to be signed.
The petition states: “That an expert panel be appointed to investigate the public health effects and societal harms of pornography to both children and adults, and to make policy recommendations to Parliament.”
“Over the past couple of weeks we have seen disturbingexamples of increasing sexual aggression and inappropriate sexual behaviour by teenagers, and a national conversation around consent and ‘rape culture’. At the same time, there is increasing consumption and availability of online pornography and sexual violence. It’s time we connected the dots,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ who is sponsoring the petition.
“Research shows that children who are exposed to pornography develop skewed ideas about sex and sexuality, which lead to negative stereotypes of women, sexual activity at a young age, and increased aggression in boys. It also places unacceptable pressure on young girls which leads to eating disorders, body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, depression, and other harms,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Research shows that men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity. A 2010 meta-analysis of several studies found “an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women.” The research also is discovering the highly addictive nature of pornography – termed by some as ‘the new drug’.”
“These studies all highlight the extent to which porn is not a private matter to be ignored by the government. It is a public health crisis which needs to be confronted,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“If we want to tackle sexual violence, we must first admit the role that pornography plays and the harm that it does to attitudes and actions.”
The official website is www.porninquiry.nz YOUTUBE presentation – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjmg4IiPCUk
NZ Herald 23 March 2017 Family First Comment: NZ Herald Editorial copies our media release https://www.familyfirst.org.nz/2017/03/easter-trading-laws-a-shambolic-mess/ “What cannot be ignored is the historical significance of the day. The number who believe the date holds religious sanctity has decreased, but the devotion of those remaining has not.” Not just the historical significance but the family significance.
It appeared such a pragmatic move for the Government to let local communities decide whether to relax the laws on Easter Sunday trading. The outcome is already a very mixed bag indeed.
Far North District Council has voted for Easter Sunday trading, as has Kaipara. Whangarei has not, and nor has Auckland.
The governing body of the Auckland Council is scheduled to debate the issue today. It is unclear why it would bother at this juncture as council officers have advised there can be no change before 2018.
As of this week, about a quarter of councils have taken the chance to open on Easter Sunday. Where you find yourself in New Zealand on April 16 is likely to determine whether you can pop out to the shopping strips and malls to browse the shelves. If you are in the major centres Auckland or Whangarei, window shopping will have to do.
At the time of passing, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2016 was hailed as a breakthrough in common sense.
Until the amendment, the rules were standard, though the exemptions were convoluted.
NZ Herald 23 March 2017 Family First Comment: “Since there are currently no medical indications for ending a person’s life, the use of the word “medical” by legislators dishonestly transfers undue responsibility for the act of euthanasia to the medical profession. Termination of life is an anathema to most doctors and I doubt if many will wish to participate. Palliative care physicians, arguably the most trusted and empathetic members of our profession, will not have a bar of it. This may lead to a small coterie of doctors who wish to be involved – “Doctor Deaths” – a phrase that will not be welcomed by the profession or most of the public.”
Most individuals have strongly held views either for or against the proposed euthanasia legislation. My own views are those of a retired, perhaps somewhat cynical, doctor who has spent most of his professional life caring for women with gynaecological cancer.
During this time I was never asked to deliberately end the life of one of them; my wife died of cancer in her mid-40s.
A Herald editorial pointed out Parliament’s health committee has “an unenviable task”, observing, “the weight of public opinion appears to support a right to die with deliberate medical assistance though the weight of medical opinion remains decidedly against it”.
While I, and many other doctors, may have sympathies with both sides of this debate, doctors are not God, and the majority, for moral, ethical, legal and professional reasons, do not wish to become involved in killing their patients.
This emotive subject is coloured by semantics and euphemisms. The Oxford Dictionary defines medicine as “the science or practice of the prevention and treatment of disease”. This definition does not include euthanasia.
“Medically assisted dying” is a classic euphemism for euthanasia. David Seymour’s proposed End-of-Life Choice bill included the words “medically” or “medical” 178 times. The word provides an aura of caring, respectability, trust and legitimacy.
READ MORE: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11823577
Stuff co.nz 22 March 2017 Family First Comment: “At that time, Wilson (21) had a 20 per cent chance of surviving and was not responding to treatment. “They said if I did pull through, it was highly likely I would need 24-hour care.” In the face of the grim prognosis, her mother agreed to have Wilson’s life support turned off. “I must have heard it because I was like ‘I’m not ready just yet, just having a sleep’, Something happened and they kept me on and I woke up.” Wilson, now 32, spent 2½ weeks in a coma.” Euthanasia laws are based on the definition of ‘terminal’ – but nobody can ever REALLY tell for sure. That’s why euthanasia is a risky road to go down.
Doctors didn’t think Jules Wilson had much of a chance after a crash left her critically injured and in a coma. Her mother agreed to turn off her life support. But Jules wasn’t done yet. Nicholas McBride reports.
Jules Wilson’s life was hanging by a thread.
Lying in a coma, part of her skull cut away to ease the pressure on her swollen brain, her mother made an agonising choice – to turn off her life support.
But Wilson wasn’t ready to give up.
Wilson was just a typical 21-year-old when a car crash in 2005 changed her life forever.
A passenger in a car that crashed into a ditch while passing at 150kmh, she suffered critical head injuries.
Doctors doubted she would last the night.
At that time, she had a 20 per cent chance of surviving and was not responding to treatment.
“They said if I did pull through, it was highly likely I would need 24-hour care.”
Media Release 23 March 2017
