Reports authors state Family First mislead N.Z Public

When does Family First actually get something right?

This ideologically driven pressure-group is not gifted at picking winners and has failed dismally to achieve the goals it has set out to do = a society based on The Old Testament.

Time after time Family First and their ubiquitous spokesman Bob McCoskie shoot-off at the mouth (often in tongues) rather than doing a semblance of research & thinking-through the consequences of their actions.

This time last years they claimed Divorce Rates were harming the New Zealand Economy. One small fact seemed to have escaped their paid researchers - but not myself. Taking their Leviticus logic to its natural conclusion, the fastest way to reduce the so-called harmful effects of divorce is for more Kiwis to become atheists – who are comparatively less represented than Christians in statistics.

Family First wanted Kiwi’s to boycott The Hells Pizza chain (2006) over their condom promotion – giving their targets more free publicity than they ever could have possibly paid for – increasing their sales and establishing their brand.

The year prior they demanded the T.V Program ‘Californication’ be taken off our screens – which again had just the opposite effect – alerting the public there was graphic sex scenes on free-to-view state T.V resulting in ratings sky-rocketed.

So you can firmly place where Family First falls in the ideological spectrum Bob McCoskie personally wanted The Simpson's taken off our screens in 2005 due to foul language.

Over the years bans and boycotts are Family Firsts modus operandi & the list grows year by year they crudely attempt to sledge-hammer their so-called ‘family values’ on-to a reluctant society.

‘Boobs on Bikes’ – should be banned.

‘AIDS pamphlets depicting genitalia ’ – should be banned

‘Web Site Miss Bimbo’ – should be boycotted

‘Girls kissing Girls Radio Competition’ – banned and boycotted.

Now the latest flummox in a long line of them, is their failled attempt to repeal smacking legislation. Family First were one of the major drivers of the appalling worded referendum held this year that wasted 9 million dollars and achieved - yet again - nothing.

This weeks released report commissioned by the incoming National Government into whether smacking laws were effective and if inconsequential smacking by parents had lead to criminal prosecution (which Family First claimed was the reality) has lead the authors of the report to single-out Family Firsts central-role in scare-mongering.

Yet, again Family First got their facts horribly wrong and many of the cases they had championed as being evidence of ‘good parents being targeted’ were at best selective and as one of the authors Nigel Latta told New Zealanders “that can lead it to throwing weight behind parents who don't deserve it and in so doing mislead the public.”

Latta went on to tell of one case Family First had ‘backed’ on Radio New Zealand that they had solicited support for their cause by highlighting “a case were a parent prosecuted for hitting a child with a pillow " but went on to clarify that “at face value ...an extreme over-reaction" but then introduced the real-facts that “it turned out the (perpetrator) had more than 70 convictions for violent offences.”

It was just the bit about the pillow-slapping Family First hollered-about to the local news-media – not the other 70 plus cases of assaults the abuser was found to have perpetrated.

In-fact ALL the cases Family First forwarded cases to Mr Latta and his committee to review as part of some pattern of over-zealous authorities prosecuting innocent parents – in not one of them did Latta feel Child, Youth and Family and police behaved in an appropriate fashion.

Latta is scathing of the Family Firsts selective reporting and its scaremongering – telling McCoskie and his rabble they were at times duped into believing false testimony and, as I said in my introduction, not doing their homework.

Thanks to Latta’s honesty and frankness New Zealanders now know Family First, a so-called Christian based organisation, were happy to back convicted scum-bag child-abusers to achieve their narrow political goals.

Why does the Christian God hate Children?

Why does the God of The Bible hate children, to the point he is willing to kill them mercilessly on a mass-scale?

We are talking about the wholesale slaughter of day-old babies up-wards, and not just when he drowned everyone, except for a drunked and his family.

The LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon.... And there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. [Exodus 12:29]

This sort of callous murder should be abhorrent to most balanced humans, who care for the sanctity of human life and the most vulnerable in society.

Then, there is the physical abuse God partakes-in, with a certain amount of sadistic pleasure, stage-planning bizarre and horrific deaths and assaults on children.

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.[ 2 Kings 2:23-24]

The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it. [Proverbs 30:17]

Sick-stuff, but it gets worse and more depraved, being ‘The Good Book’.

This Hannibal Lecter of the Heavens wants parents to engage in cannibalism of their children, as some sort of ritualistic appeasement to his glory.

And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. [Leviticus 26:29]

And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. – [Deuteronomy 28:53]

And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. [Jeremiah 19:9]

If you are not up to dismembering & consuming your own flesh & blood, then at least have the courtesy on Gods behalf, to take a rod like object, such as a baseball bat and beat a child within an inch of their lives, so his rival the nasty devil, will pop-out.

Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell [Proverbs 23:14]

And when will there be enough ritualistic and arbitrary slaughter & physical abuse of children for the God of The Bible to be satisfied?

He’s very specific on that question.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones [Psalm 137:9]

So he can never personally be lumbered with the tag of favouritsm when it came to indiscriminate brutality of the young on earth.

God even set-up his only son to die!

And if that wasn't enough suffering for the youngest of his creations to endure.

He kindly left mankind with the legacy of starvation, disease etc. so his murderous spree could continue unabated.

The God of the Bible is undoubtedly a Child Murderer on a scale and veracity that is abhorrent to anyone with an once of moral fibre.

Strangely Christians seem to love him?

Say “No” to smacking a week-old baby across the face.

"Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand”

So the bible-bashing zealots have got their way, and the country is to shortly pour nine-million dollars down-the-drain on a referendum, which when it has all been said and done, will probably do nothing.

This expense is unjustifiable at a time when New Zealand and the world economy are in a deep recession.

But now we are apparently lumbered with it, let’s see what we get when we answer “No” to ‘Focus on The Family’s’ appalling worded, ambiguous question (above).

1.) No, it shouldn’t be an offence to smack your child across the face with your fist as part of good parental correction.

2.) No, it shouldn’t be an offence for parents to smack a week old baby as part of so-called parental correction.

The way I read it, this is a possible interpretation of the wording in the poorly-worded question posed.

What exactly is a smack for starters?

Parents will be able to say in mitigation “I was only smacking them” when the child displays signs they received more that simple correction, smack on the bum.

This was exactly the mess we had before the law change.

And why stop with correcting children?

The originator of the petition is Sheyll Savill, and as it happens her husband is a policeman.

When Police-Constable Savill comes across some husband in his line of work, who has given his wife a “smacking” should he not feel pains of guilt at arresting them?

Would Constable Savill stand idly by while I slapped his wife?

Why does he then allow his wife smack his kids in an identical situation, without arresting her?

The answer is easy.

Sheyll Savill wants criminals who beat their children to escape justice, in pursuit of her own beliefs, which say specifically parents are justified using physical pain.

"Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

“Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."

“Folly is bound up in the heart of a boy, but the rod of discipline drives it far away”

“Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell”

The Bible therefore specifically requires Christian parents to beat their children to prevent them slipping into Satan’s hands.

Beating is exactly the word used, not smacking, but beating.

Good Christian parents should employ rods, not the palm of your hands, but a form of weapon in the shape of a rod.

A baseball bat, or a piece of 4 x 2 timber fits the scriptures description well.

Then beat the living-crap out of the poor little sods, till the big-bad devil pops-out.

So from the orchestrator's of The Petitions perspective, this is not a question of freedoms, this is a question of rights.

These are not your or my biological off-spring.

They are Gods property.

The rights ordained to them in Gods best-seller, gives you and me the rights to beat-our-brats with impunity, on Gods behalf.

Are Christians Exempt New Smacking Laws?

This is Korean pastor Moon Hong Min outside court in Christchurch.

He’s looking rather pleased with himself, which is hardly surprising given the fact he escaped conviction after striking his 15 year old niece with a leather belt eight times around her legs, torso, and shoulders.

His guilty plea & the evidence above should have been enough one would have thought, to distinguish the pastors actions from a simple case of over-zealous chastisement, to one involving petulant violence against a minor in his care.

The thrashing came as a result of his niece spending too much time on her cell-phone.

The defence told the judge a conviction would see his work visa cancelled and deprive the Korean Christian community in Christchurch, his attributes as a pastor.

Whilst the judge indicating the crime was of a serious nature, the judge imposed only a fine ($2,5000) & the pastor walked from Court and back to ministering his flock.

Thus, all the smiles above.

Those that are pushing for the referendum on child discipline are asking for consistency in law and clear legal guidelines for parents – well now they have it.

New Zealanders now have the legal precedent & guidelines they were after, and boy will the Christian based anti-smacking campaigners, be applauding this landmark decision.

The message is there for all of us to ponder.

Moons defence was founded on his “character” and his own beliefs of traditional discipline ‘old testament style’, plus the ramifications a conviction would have on his ability to stay in New Zealand.

The Judge agreed these were enough grounds for Pastor Moon to escape conviction, and he receive the lighter punishment.

If he had have been ‘Joe Bloggs the Atheist from over the fence’ or ‘The Head of The Hells Angels chapter’ in court under identical circumstances, it’s doubtful the court would have been so lenient in imposing just a fine.

The decision in this case will be picked-up by lawyers up & down the country and the precedent created here will doubtless be repeated in similar cases.