The Scotsman 11 September 2018 Family First Comment: A New Zealand family values campaigner has claimed a new law banning the smacking of children in Scotland is “ideological nonsense” and will “criminalise good parents.” Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First NZ, a conservative Christian lobby group, has been fighting the ban in his home country since it came into force more than a decade ago – and he wants Scotland to take heed.
A New Zealand family values campaigner has claimed a new law banning the smacking of children in Scotland is “ideological nonsense” and will “criminalise good parents.” Bob McCoskrie, national director of Family First NZ, a conservative Christian lobby group, has been fighting the ban in his home country since it came into force more than a decade ago – and he wants Scotland to take heed.
The Scottish Government is supporting a bill put forward by Green MSP John Finnie to abolish the legal defence of “justifiable assault,” which is currently available to parents to justify the use of physical force to discipline a child.
At present, Scottish law prohibits parents from shaking their child, striking their head and using an “implement” during punishment.
But the new legislation, expected to be passed at Holyrood within the next year, would ban smacking of any sort – and parents could face jail if they flout the law.
‘Criminalising good parents’ Mr McCoskrie said: “Your smacking ban law to be passed by politicians (in Scotland) is ideological nonsense which will do nothing to solve rates of child abuse, and will simply criminalise good parents raising great kids.”
He said that in many cases parental guidance and correction will be non-physical such as grounding a child, withdrawing their privileges or telling them off, but sometimes a parent may “reasonably decide” a smack is the most effective way to prevent or correct unacceptable behaviour.
He says many adults received a well-warranted smack when they were younger but didn’t think of it as abuse, and that although some parenting techniques do become abusive, this says more about the type of parents.
Mr McCoskrie also says that, since the 2007 introduction of the law in New Zealand, Family First has not found a single social indicator relating to the welfare of children which shows improvement. He claims this is evidence for the ban’s failure, and quotes police statistics from 2016 which show significant increases in the reporting of child physical and sexual abuse in New Zealand since 2007.
Mr McCoskrie also referred to a 2016 survey which found that two-thirds of parents in New Zealand said they would be willing to flout the law, and highlighted a 2011 study which suggested a third of parents had been threatened by their children with being reported to police if they were smacked.
NZ Herald 12 September 2018
The Education Review Office says high schools should be teaching about pornography and sexual violence so teenagers learn what’s healthy and what’s not.
“To meet the needs of young people in our current context, sexuality education needs to be more comprehensive and the variability across schools needs to be reduced,” it says.
“This evaluation found some schools were failing to meet minimum standards of effectiveness, and many more were only just meeting these standards.
“Given the complexity of the issues involved, and the impact sexuality issues have on young people’s wellbeing, this performance is not good enough.”
NZ sex-ed was bad in 2007 – its still just as bad, report shows Stuff co.nz 12 September 2018
Sex education in New Zealand is no better than it was a decade ago – and students are being let down by a lack of education around consent, pornography and sexual violence, a new report shows.
In 2007, the Education Review Office (ERO) found the majority of schools were not effectively meeting students’ needs with sex education.
Māori and Pacific students were being particularly let down, as were students with additional needs and students who were sex-, gender- or sexuality-diverse
ERO also commended a large co-ed secondary school for celebrating diversity by asking students if they had a preferred name or pronoun, and using non-gendered terms, installing gender-neutral toilets, supporting a same-sex couple as the main characters in their student-directed Shakespeare production and holding gender-neutral events at athletics days.
Media Release 12 September 2018 Family First NZ says that the Education Review Office should talk to parents first before issuing reports about sexuality education in schools. Family First also questions why words such as “abstinence”, “delay”, “moral”, and “marriage” have been left out of guidelines for school.
The review acknowledges that the best outcomes are achieved when trustees and school leaders consult with the school community, and the parents being able to have ‘meaningful input into the content and delivery’ of any programmes. The report also admitted that ‘very few schools reported to parents on sexuality education achievement. Consequently, evaluation of sexuality education provision, when it did occur, focused mostly on what had been delivered, rather than learning outcomes for students.’
“The government is currently pursuing and promoting a curriculum where children are indoctrinated on ‘gender identity’ ideology and the harms of gender stereotypes, and given dangerous messages that they’re sexual from birth, that the proper time for sexual activity is when they feel ready, and that they have rights to pleasure, birth control, and abortion. Most schools, along with parents in that school community, are rejecting the extreme elements of the sexuality education guidelines, which probably explains why so many schools aren’t delivering them,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“Parents also object to these programmes targeted at children which undermine the role and values of parents, and resources which fail to take into account the emotional and physical development of each child and the values of that particular family.”
“Yes, pornography viewing by young people is absolutely a major concern for parents, but what parents are crying out for is resources and an understanding of the technology, the risks, and of how to protect their children. They want their children to know that it is wrong and to be discouraged from viewing it. It is not just a topic for discussion, devoid of any moral framework or direction.”
In a 2017 independent nationwide poll of 846 people undertaken by Curia Market Research, 4 out of 5 parents said they are confident of their ability to teach their own children about sex and sexuality issues, and 2/3’rds believe that parents should be dictating any school-based teaching, not the government or groups such as Family Planning and Rainbow Youth.
“This polling is a clear rebuke to the current government approach of developing curriculum with minimal input from parents. Parents know their children the best and should determine the best timing and most appropriate way to tackle topics such as keeping themselves safe, consent, and ‘where do babies come from’. A valueless ‘one size fits all’ approach is far too simplistic and can even be harmful,” says Mr McCoskrie.
“Studies show that the biggest protective factors for coping with puberty and sexual involvement are married parents, family values, parental supervision, and parental expectations for behaviour. What happens at home is the greatest determinant of the outcomes for the young person. There seems to be a basic and ironic assumption that parents know nothing about sex and that only Family Planning and Rainbow Youth do. This is a myth and is rejected by Kiwi parents.”
Family First released a report in 2013 “R18: Sexuality Education in New Zealand – A Critical Review” by US psychiatrist Dr Miriam Grossman which was sent to all school principals and all Board of Trustee Chairpersons of Intermediate and Secondary schools in NZ. Dr Grossman warned that the sex education resources fail to tell the full facts and compromise the concerns and wishes of parents, and the safety of young people. “A premise of modern sex education is that young people have the right to make their own decisions about sexual activity, and no judging is allowed. Risky behaviours are normalised and even celebrated. Children and adolescents are introduced to sexual activities their parents would prefer they not even know about, let alone practice. It’s reasonable to ask: is the ‘comprehensive sexuality education’ foisted on young people all over the world about sexual health, or sexual licence?” says Dr Grossman.
Here’s a comment from the report… “Leaders and teachers supported diversity in a variety of ways, for example, by asking students if they had a preferred name or pronoun, and using nongendered terms. The board responded to a request from students for gender-neutral toilets, saying it was a ‘no-brainer’ to meet this need. Students elected to have a same-sex couple as the main characters in their student-directed Shakespeare production. In 2017 and 2018, the school had gender-neutral events at athletics days.” And, apparently, this is a good model to follow! ENDS
BRUCE LOGAN – Published in the Dominion Post 12 Sep 2018 We’ve been at war over marriage and family for some time. Are we approaching the last battle?
In a High Court judgement against Family First, Justice France declared that Family First’s promotion of the “traditional family cannot be shown to be in the public benefit”. This decision is the opposite of the judgement of the same court in 2015.
The Family First model runs counter to human rights law, says Justice France.
If that’s true, then human rights law is an ass. So what has happened?
Human rights were originally conceived to protect people from an oppressive state. Their purpose was to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and censorship, by placing restraints on government. The state’s capacity and responsibility to protect these “negative rights” was assumed, since they required only that people be protected from over-reaching state power. They were the consequence of the belief that human dignity found its genesis in our creation by God, and not in the state.
Modern human rights are about entitlement, manipulated by the ideology of equality, diversity and the new affirming tolerance. Increasing new positive rights laws allow the state to decide what we are entitled to, and what we are not.
Consequently, we are in the middle of a spiritual and culture war over the control of the private and public conscience. Human rights have become a weapon to normalise social justice values of identity politics and to delegitimise traditional belief. These new rights are lining up against us to limit our liberties.
We used to believe that God was the master. Human beings were creatures with inalienable rights. For example, a man and a woman have a right to marry and start a family – the basic unit of civil society – not because the state says so, but because they are male and female.
Up until relatively recently, nearly everyone believed that.
However, with the increasing imposition of group equality – same sex marriage for example – rather than individual equality under law, it doesn’t matter what people might have believed about marriage. Marriage is now what the state says it is. In doing so, the state became a surrogate deity turning its own positive law into an absolute; it now determines what constitutes a family.
Going back to Magna Carta is helpful. Magna Carta was an attempt to understand and employ natural law. Human dignity was assumed because the framers believed that they had been created by God. For example, the idea of a just and reasonable tax is only possible if the state can be called to account by a higher law. There was a natural order by which men and women must live. It was the law’s function to understand that natural order and to give it positive expression. Law was discovered rather than invented.
Who’s the boss; God or the State?Family First, in its defence of the natural family declares that there is an authority above the state. Which is no more than what the natural family claims in practice. As the prime institution of civil society it has its own limited area of authority into which the state should not intrude. The natural family stands in the way of an aggressive overreaching state.
However, once the family has been redefined by the state, the game changes and citizen freedom is dramatically undermined. The Marxist doctrine echoes in the background; “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
Modern human rights theory is all about invention. The state makes them up as it goes along.
That’s why Family First, according to Justice France, is guilty of breaking human rights law in its defence of the natural / traditional intergenerational family.
We’re told we are a secular society. Just what that might mean is difficult to ascertain, but one thing a secular society does not have is a new moral vision. At best all it can do is to distort the old narrative by emphasising one traditional virtue above the rest; tolerance at the expense of truth or courage for example.
Human rights, disconnected from their roots, have become parasitic. They consume the old notion of freedom hoping its digestion will lead us to the utopia the progressives keep promising us.
The deregistration of Family First’s charitable status must be resisted because much more than simple registration is at stake. The Commission’s claim that the traditional family is not the heart of a free nation is outrageous and wrong. Any kind of legal or bureaucratic action that undermines family status, function and authority will, most certainly, harm our children.
Stuff co.nz 12 September 2018 Family First Comment: Who’s the boss? God or the state? Family First, in its defence of the natural family, declares that there is an authority above the state. Which is no more than what the natural family claims in practice. As the primary institution of civil society it has its own limited area of authority into which the state should not intrude. It keeps an over-reaching state under control. Once the family is redefined by the state the game changes and citizen freedom is dramatically undermined. Hate-speech law will become normative, evolving and unstoppable. The Marxist doctrine emerges from the shadows; “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”
OPINION: We’ve been at war over marriage and family for some time. Are we approaching the last battle?
In a High Court judgment on Family First’s charitable status, Justice Simon France declared that Family First’s promotion of the “traditional family cannot be shown to be in the public benefit”. This decision is the opposite of the same court’s judgment in 2015.
The Family First model runs counter to human rights law, says Justice France. So what has happened?
Human rights were originally conceived to protect people from an oppressive state. Their purpose was to prevent arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, and censorship, by placing restraints on government. The state’s responsibility to protect these “negative rights” was assumed, since they required only that people be protected from over-reaching state power. They were the consequence of the belief that human dignity found its genesis in our creation by God and not in the state.
The Magna Carta is helpful. For example, the idea of a just and reasonable tax was only possible if the king could be called to account by a higher law. It was the state’s legal function to understand that higher law and give it positive expression. Law was discovered, not invented.
Modern human rights are about entitlement manipulated by the ideology of equality, diversity and the new affirming tolerance. Increasing positive rights law allows the unimpeded state to decide what we are entitled to and what we are not. Consequently, we are in the middle of a spiritual and culture war over the control of the private and public conscience. Human rights have become a weapon to normalise social justice values of identity politics and to delegitimise traditional belief.
These new rights limit our long-standing freedoms.
We used to believe that human beings had inalienable rights. For example, a man and a woman have a right to marry, start and educate a family; not because the state or the church says so, but because they possess the unique dignity of male and female. Until recently nearly everyone believed that.
However, with the increasing imposition of group equality, same-sex marriage for example, and most recently transgender rights, it doesn’t matter what people might have believed about marriage or individual rights. Marriage is now what the state says it is. The state has become a surrogate deity turning its own positive law into an absolute which determines the constitution of family.
Who’s the boss? God or the state? Family First, in its defence of the natural family, declares that there is an authority above the state. Which is no more than what the natural family claims in practice. As the primary institution of civil society it has its own limited area of authority into which the state should not intrude. It keeps an over-reaching state under control.
Once the family is redefined by the state the game changes and citizen freedom is dramatically undermined. Hate-speech law will become normative, evolving and unstoppable. The Marxist doctrine emerges from the shadows; “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness”
We’re told we are a secular society. Just what that might mean is difficult to ascertain, but one thing a secular society does not have is a new moral vision. At best all it can do is to distort the old narrative by emphasising one traditional virtue above the rest; tolerance at the expense of truth or courage, for example.
We’ve been at war over marriage and family for some time. Are we approaching the last battle?
Going back to Magna Carta is helpful. Magna Carta was an attempt to understand and employ natural law. Human dignity was assumed because the framers believed that they had been created by God. For example, the idea of a just and reasonable tax is only possible if the state can be called to account by a higher law. There was a natural order by which men and women must live. It was the law’s function to understand that natural order and to give it positive expression. Law was discovered rather than invented.
