Family Integrity

Category: News Media/Press Releases

  • HELEN CLARK IN 1998
    13 Jun 2008

    Hi Barbara,

    Who said it????

    “She wants to busy herself with what goes on in the homes of the nation in areas which families regard as their own responsibility, and I think she’s going over a very dangerous line.”

    Who said this? HELEN CLARK IN 1998
    Who was she referring to? JENNY SHIPLEY – THE PRIME MINISTER AT THE TIME
    Source – Dominion Post 30 March 1998 (referring to Shipley’s proposed code of social and family responsibility, and her suggestion of values and religious teaching in schools – SHOCK HORROR!!!)

  • Abortion – The worst form of Child Abuse

    MEDIA RELEASE

    10 June 2008

    Abortion Supervisory Committee Deserves Criticism

    Family First NZ is welcoming the comments by a High Court judge that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has been applying the abortion laws too liberally and has failed to adequately supervise the work of certifying consultants.

    “The Committee has ignored the original intention of parliament and because of their lack of supervision and inaction, this has effectively led to abortion on demand,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “As a result, approximately 18,000 abortions are performed every year, and since 1991, the number of 11-14 year olds having an abortion has increased by 144%. The number of abortions for 15-19 year olds has increased by 74%. Each week, almost 80 teenagers have an abortion, and represent almost a quarter of all abortions performed in NZ.”

    Ironically, at the same time as almost 18,000 abortions were being performed in NZ last year, adoptions totaled less than 90, according to the Adoption Option Trust.

    “Abortions being performed at greater than 12 weeks has increased by 220%, despite all the pictures and scans we are seeing showing the fetal development of the unborn child,” says Mr McCoskrie. “These images are obviously being kept hidden from some of the women seeking an abortion.”

    “The high numbers of abortions (despite all the supposed safe sex messages and availability of contraception), and now this ruling, confirms that the Abortion Supervisory Committee continues to fail both women and the unborn child.”

    Family First NZ is calling for a law which requires informed consent (including ultrasound) for all potential abortions, and counselling to be provided only by non-providers of abortion services. Parental notification of teenage pregnancy and abortion should happen automatically except in exceptional circumstances approved by the court.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • Comments on TVNZ Online eye-to-eye: debate

    https://familyintegrity.org.nz/2008/tvnz-online-eye-to-eye-debate/

    Well…I’ve watched this Eye2Eye program.

    It’s the usual useless sort of TV setup that uses a ‘crisis’ as a means of entertainment and solves nothing.

    Anyway…yes, Christine and Richard landed some good hits and got a bit of clarity, but at the end they both fell into a Marxist semantic trap, and unbeknown to themselves began arguing for the other side.

    They started using the language of State/Society ownership of children – “Our children, our babies…” etc, as though corporate man/class man/Marxist man has a greater interest and stake in the welfare of children than parents do, or that parents somehow raise children for the State. (‘State’ and ‘Society’ are intentionally capitalized because today ‘the State’ is the most powerful of modern gods). This view is utterly false and just indicates the degree to which Marxists have captured the language, and thus control the debate. Christine it seemed to me was statist in many of her statements, as was Willie in his closing comment, both effectively saying the State had to solve the problem. In fact ‘the cause of problem’ was never even identified. The swiftness with which they all (not sure about Richard) invoked State intervention at the end was worrying.

    To use Marxist language of State/Society ownership should be anathema to us, as it hands the debate to the Marxists who have the upper hand at the moment. We should look very carefully at all our language and expunge any Marxist terms from our vocab.

    Within the Biblical worldview that has controlled much of Western thought on parenting and children in the past, parents don’t ‘own’ children any more than the state does. God the Creator is the ultimate owner of everything, including children and their parents, and states. However, in this view, what parents do have which the state does not have (ideally a very limited state with little connection to modern day, all encompassing, Socialist States), is the God-given responsibility to raise ‘their’ children (in the sense of offspring rather than ownership) to be God honouring, law abiding, productive people who serve others. Children are given to parents on trust by God, and parents are to steward their children on behalf of God. Parents in many ways stand in the place of God to their children, as his representatives to them as guides, nurturers, and administrators of justice as defined by God. Neither parents nor children are creatures or possessions of States. Thus parents do not raise children and steward them as surrogates of the State.

    And ‘the cause of the problem’?

    It is not ‘environmental’, i.e., colonization, class oppression, disparity of incomes, poor education, hard births or tight nappies as a child. It is ‘internal’ in that humans are individually and corporately rebels against God, and work that rebellion out in a multitude of ways, one of which is for the image of God in children to be abused.

    Unfortunately Richard identified ‘poverty’ as one of the causes of child abuse. This is nothing but a thoughtless and unjustified slur on the myriads of parents throughout all time – the present being no exception – who have been poor but have not abused their children.

    ‘Poverty’ however is another great Marxist lever. Only they have redefined it to mean ‘relative poverty’. Thus, in the latest Investigate Mag, there is a critique of some social action group – clearly Marxist in orientation – who want to set the poverty level in NZ at ‘60% of the median household disposable income after housing costs.’ People with such an income aren’t poor, just relatively poor. They are actually incomprehensibly rich compared to the genuinely poor of the world. Unless their worldview allows for it or endorses it, the genuine poor who live in grinding poverty, are no more abusive than anyone else. We have the irony that the majority of those in the New Zealand Parliament (specifically including Sue Bradford and Helen Clark), and those in the highest positions appointed by the present Government (specifically Cindy Kiro) – all of whom are extremely wealthy, have a worldview that explicitly calls for and justifies the ultimate in child abuse. And so 18000 children are killed in their mother’s wombs every year in New Zealand. The gall of these people to brazenly say they are against child abuse and that poverty is a major cause, and yet exult over the wanton destruction of thousands of children, is almost beyond belief.

    Material wealth or poverty is not an indicator of the likelihood of abuse. Moral/spiritual poverty however is and this may also be externally expressed by drunkenness, drug addiction, crime (dishonesty, theft, violence), promiscuity, unwillingness to work, etc. All of these things head a person to material poverty, and mark some of the distinctions in the book of Proverbs in the Bible between the deserving and undeserving poor.

    The solution? The genuine conversion of violent, abusive individuals to the Christian Gospel, will over night remove those individuals from being abusive to others. If such conversion, with its accompanying transformation of the individual, does not occur and so does not remove the individual from the ranks of the abusers, then the abuse must be responded to as a matter of justice, of a wrong being committed against another. Unfortunately there is a problem at this level also, as today’s NZ Justice System not longer administers justice. Because of the rejection of its Christian roots grounded in the absolute standards of the Biblical worldview, it has lost all philosophical connection to real justice.

    For a number of reasons, the Christian analysis of the problem and solution to it, is not even considered by most today as having any relevance to public societal matters. Thus the real solution is locked away from ever being applied.

    All the best

    Renton

  • Bruce Logan-NZ Herald

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10514394&pnum=0

    By Bruce Logan

    Living in France, particularly in the south, has tended to reinforce the impression that smacking is not an old-fashioned and unenlightened activity at all. Indeed a number of mythologies one absorbed in New Zealand have dissolved. The French are not arrogant, they are not bad drivers and the children are not cheeky.

    Nevertheless, it was surprising to discover from a visiting Paris journalist that a significant majority of French adolescents valued obedience to parents above independence in a recent European survey. I have also discovered that 70 per cent of French children think that la fessee (French for a smack on the bottom) is fine.

    And smacking young children in France doesn’t seem to be a generational thing either. Ten years ago 85 per cent of parents thought smacking normal but a more recent survey put the figure at 87 per cent.

    For European anti-smackers all this is something of an enigma. France, the country that gave us the Enlightenment, they argue, is being regressive. It is quite simply old-fashioned.

    But the facts do not bear this out; children, one could reasonably argue, are treated better in France than any other European nation. France at 2.1 has the highest fertility rate of all the West European countries; only Sweden equals that.

    And then there are the government incentives; Three year paid parental leave with guaranteed job protection. Subsidised day care for the first two years of a child’s life.

    Universal full-time preschool at age 3. Monthly child-care allowance which increases with the birth of each child plus a grant for a third child of $2000. Subsidised nanny care.

    France spends about 15 per cent of its total budget on family and child services.

    French women are not only more productive than their European counterparts but they also have higher rates of employment than most other European countries. Seventy-four per cent of women between 25 and 54 with one child are in fulltime employment. It drops to 58 per cent with two children. Whatever one might think of that, the accusation “old-fashioned” is hardly appropriate.

    The French seem to have adopted a quality of life that encourages French women to feel legitimised when they enter the workforce. It might be that this has something to do simply with the way the French live. They certainly have a shorter working week than New Zealanders. Five or six weeks annual leave also helps.

    France remains a country where family life is valued. In every village and small town, especially in the south, most shops close for a two-hour lunch; sometimes longer. Even in large cities like Toulouse, many shops close for an extended lunch hour.

    Although this extended lunch hour is eroding, families still tend to come together during the lunch hour and again in the evening when very young children participate in family activities. The civilised custom of an aperitif with friends before the evening meal, and which can go on until quite late, will nearly always have children present.

    It is this mix of ritual and child friendliness which gives French life much of its appeal. It tends to encourage a certain expectation of trust which just might, for example, be evident in the remaining frequent use of cheques in supermarkets although the severe punishment for fraud could be a deterrent.

    The French are not old-fashioned at all but they are suspicious of the government when it tells parents how to treat their children. And it is this fear of unwarranted intrusion that I suspect is driving Bob McCoskrie and Family First. He would get considerable support in France.

    The use of smacking as a disciplinary tool for young children is not old-fashioned at all. It is not an exercise in violence or an indicator of a lack of love. Indeed I suspect most French parents would claim the opposite.

    To smack or not to smack is not the kind of non-issue that the Herald editorial seems to be claiming. Loving children and caring for them demands discipline and the smacking of young children must be something that parents are able to do without government manipulated guilt.

    The loving and disciplining of children lies at the heart of a culture and reflects a complexity of issues. It is far too complex an issue to be monitored by a poorly designed law.

    * Bruce Logan, a former teacher, is a conservative Christian who founded the Maxim Institute for social research.

  • Parents De-clawed by Rights Culture and Law Changes

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0806/S00068.htm

    MEDIA RELEASE

    June 2008

    Parents De-clawed by Rights Culture and Law Changes

    Family First NZ says that the case of a Bay of Plenty couple feeling they could do nothing to stop their teenager growing dope in the bathtub of the family home is indicative of how powerless parents are feeling in their role.

    “While the inaction of the parents is unacceptable, the current rights culture being preached to young people along with laws like the anti-smacking law has given an underlying message to young people that their parents cannot discipline them and cannot tell them what to do,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

    “The anti-smacking law has been hugely unpopular, not because parents are demanding the right to smack, but because they simply want the right to parent reasonably and effectively without unwarranted intervention. The law has had the effect of being an anti-parental correction law.”

    “This case highlights just how de-clawed parents are feeling, and follows on from recent reports showing teenagers are becoming increasingly violent or threatening towards their parents and that some parents no longer have the confidence to deal with the unacceptable behaviour.”

    “If the government wants parents to be responsible parents, they must firstly respect their authority,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The anti-smacking law and the rights culture pushed by the UN, Children’s Commissioner, Youth Law Project and others has undermined the role of parents, has failed to understand the special relationship and functioning of families, and has communicated to some children that they are now in the ‘driving seat’ and parents should be put in their place.”

    “This case highlights just how much confidence parents have lost.”

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • TVNZ Online-eye to eye: debate

    Hi Family Integrity
    I thought you might be interested in this debate broadcast on Sunday TV1 Eye to Eye. It involves Christine Rankin and Richard Lewis against Sue Bradford and Paora Maxwell on child abuse and the anti smacking law. I think Rankin and Lewis do a particularly good job.
    It can be viewed from this link
    Comments on tvnz online-eye-to-eye debate

  • Obesity and Smacking Are Linked – Yeah Right!

    MEDIA RELEASE

    4 June 2008

    Family First NZ is questioning why a government sponsored survey of obesity rates and related issues of exercise, tv watching, nutrition, fast food and drinking patterns has included a question on smacking.

    “Either the government believes that obesity and smacking are linked, or they are trying to throw a positive spin on the highly unpopular smacking law,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “Both ideas are preposterous.”

    “Does the government believe that only obese parents use smacking as a form of correction, or do they believe that if a child is smacked, they will be obese in later life? If that was the case, our current generation of grandparents who were raised before the anti-smacking crusade would be the most obese of all NZ’ers – which of course they are not.”

    “What this survey shows is a cynical attempt by the government to try and tackle the increasing opposition to the highly unpopular anti-smacking law,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “The research has already been done – a 2006 Otago University study found that children who were smacked in a reasonable way had similar or slightly better outcomes in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement than those who were not smacked at all. And a Christchurch study by Professor Fergusson found no difference between no smacking and moderate physical punishment. They even said “It is misleading to imply that occasional or mild physical punishment has long term adverse consequences.”

    “No mention of obesity!” says Mr McCoskrie.

    “There are two facts that should be linked however – 85%, and those who want the anti-smacking law changed. That’s the statistic that the government should be taking notice of,” says Mr McCoskrie.

    ENDS

    For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

    Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

    Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

  • NZ Herald editorial reeks of arrogance!

    Responding to the NZ Herald editorial this morning, Petition organiser & Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said the author’s opinion would change rapidly if they were a parent and had just received a visit from the Police or CYFS.

    “The author is right about one thing and one thing only. The law change has made no difference to the awful rates of child abuse it was intended to address. When it comes to the 48% of good parent’s in the survey that have admitted to still occasionally smacking their children it is not true to say it has been business as usual. We have heard tens of thousands of Kiwi Parents at our petition tables express that they now operate in a climate of fear. That is what this law change has done and the amendment of John Key has done nothing much to alleviate that.
    The NZ Herald shows an enormous contradiction in their attitude when they railed against the EFA and said it had to be repealed, but are prepared to allow the climate of fear to prevail over the majority of good Mums and Dads in this country with a do nothing about it attitude.

    By publishing the true and accurate accounts of those affected by this law, Bob McCoskrie at Family First has done everyone in this country a service. That is hardly alarmism. There have been many other stories identified but because of the fear of further consequences some have not wanted to publicly tell their stories.

    The arrogance and superior attitude behind the editorial statement “there are, as every sensible parent knows, better ways to correct bad behaviour, but if parents sometimes use more primitive means the law can be reasonable,” makes my blood boil. For thousands of years loving hard working parents have raised healthy well balanced respectful kids by using appropriate physical discipline and this journalist, with a stroke of their pen, feels so enlightened in our modern world to be able to pass judgement upon them by calling their parenting primitive. That is appalling!
    What will definitely create a primitive society and return to us the barbarianism of the past, is the failure to properly discipline children and teach them respect for authority.

    If the author is worried about the debate being stirred up all over again after the election and the referendum I would put their mind at rest. If the Kiwi Party is in a position to exercise influence over a National led government the Bradford Act will be gone by lunchtime. No drawn out select committee with submissions and debates. One session of urgency is all it will take, and good parents will be able to get on with the most important job in this country, that of raising good kids, without having to look over their shoulder all the time to see what liberal do-gooder might be watching and waiting to dobb them in.

    Finally I have to say how disappointing it was to see that the author was unwilling to put their name to their opinion piece. More than 350,000 Kiwis have been concerned enough about the Bradford anti-smacking law that they have placed their name to the petition in broad daylight. Some of them, like police, social workers and Plunket employees have done so while expressing a concern that there have been veiled suggestions that they should not be doing so.
    We undermine our freedom when we lack the courage to put our name to our convictions,” said Mr Baldock.

    Ends
    Contact

    Larry Baldock
    Party Leader Kiwi Party
    Phone: 021 86 4833
    Email: l.baldock@xtra.co.nz