SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Chris Kahui Should Be Charged For Negligent Parenting says registered charity Family First New Zealand

by Leave a Comment

Family First New Zealand [a registered charity – CC10094 – with the Charities Commission] believes that Chris Kahui should be charged for ‘negligent parenting’ and is questioning why the police are not willing to pursue a prosecution. Its Media Release issued 21 October 2012 states:

“It is quite clear from the Coroner’s report that the actions, or more correctly, the inaction of Chris Kahui had an adverse effect on the timing of urgent treatment which the babies needed,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “The Coroner’s report says that medical evidence shows the babies could have been saved if taken to hospital earlier.”

“We would argue that the police should be seeking to charge Mr Kahui under s152 crimes act – a parent failing to provide necessaries and protect from injury.”

“There were a number of actions which a reasonable parent would have taken in the circumstances. The family were advising Chris to take the babies to hospital because of their presenting conditions and Chris’s sister was heading there anyway – but he refused. The Coroner found he hid the details of how unresponsive the twins had been and their feeding patterns and wellbeing when their mother returned home.”

“And when the doctor told the parents to urgently take the children to hospital, Mr Kahui deserted his partner and went home and played playstation while his children were fighting for their lives,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“It seems clear that Chris Kahui failed as a caregiver on decisions which were life and death decisions, and he should be held accountable for them.”

152 Duty of parent or guardian to provide necessaries and protect from injury

  • Every one who is a parent, or is a person in place of a parent, who has actual care or charge of a child under the age of 18 years is under a legal duty—
    • (a) to provide that child with necessaries; and
    • (b) to take reasonable steps to protect that child from injury.

    ____________

    • Source: Media Release 21 October 2012
    • http://familyfirst.org.nz/2012/10/chris-kahui-should-be-charged-for-negligent-parenting/

Ethicists advocating infanticide open way to horrors of Nazism

by Leave a Comment

Karl du Fresne, a regular columnist for The Dominion Post, has written today:

When I read recently that two medical ethicists had suggested it should be legal to kill newborn babies, my first thought was that they must be anti-abortion campaigners choosing an unusually dramatic way to make their point.

After all, what’s the difference, ethically speaking, between aborting a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation or waiting until it’s born, then quietly suffocating it or administering a lethal injection? None that I can see.

That’s exactly the point made by doctors Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. As it turns out, the two ethicists are not opposed to abortion. Far from it. They are simply advancing, in a clinically dispassionate way, the argument that it doesn’t make any difference whether babies’ lives are terminated in the womb or after birth.

Newborns aren’t actual persons, they suggest, merely potential persons. Neither the foetus nor the newborn baby is a person with a moral right to life. Only actual persons can be harmed by being killed.

It’s a proposition that would shock decent people. Yet it exposes the fundamental flaw, both logical and moral, behind abortion laws such as those that apply in New Zealand.

Most people who think it’s OK to abort babies in the womb would recoil in horror at the thought of snuffing their lives out once they’ve been born.

But I ask again, what’s the difference? Some babies that are legally aborted under present law (there were 16,630 in 2010) have reached a stage in their development when they are capable, with intensive medical care, of surviving outside the womb.

Newborn babies also need intervention to survive. So at what point do we decide a baby has a right to life – at six months old, one year, only when it’s capable of feeding itself and walking?

No civilised society would countenance the killing of babies at any of these stages. It would equal the worst horrors of Nazism.

Yet the Australian state of Victoria already allows babies to be aborted right up to the time of birth and pro-abortion lobbyists would like the same law adopted here. It’s only a short step from there to infanticide.

And why not? After all, Minerva and Giubilini make it clear there is no ethical difference between killing babies in the womb and murdering them after birth. Any point after conception at which society decides it’s legally permissable to end their lives is entirely artificial and arbitrary.

One chilling argument advanced by the ethicists is that parents whose babies are born disabled without warning, as often happens frequently, should be able to have them killed.

A society that considers itself humane would draw back in horror from such a proposal, but it’s simply a logical extensioin of what we’re doing now.

Source: The Dominion Post. Tuesday, March 13, 2012.

Note: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) has as one of its seven objects in its constitution:

Section 2(b) “To promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages.”

This written purpose has been approved by the Charities Commission, headed by Trevor Garrett, as a “charitable purpose”. The publication of the opinion piece above by Karl du Fresne is relevant to this “charitable purpose”.

Reality Check Needed on Shameful Child Abuse says Family First NZ

by Leave a Comment

MEDIA RELEASE

In a media release issued  on 10 December 2011, Family First NZ, a registered charity with the Charities Commission, states:

Family First  is rejecting claims by the Children’s Commissioner and others that rising child abuse statistics are ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’, and is repeating its call for a Royal Commission of Inquiry into child abuse as a result of continuing ‘tragic’ figures. 

“It is time we stopped ‘marketing’ child abuse statistics and trying to give them a positive spin, under the illusion that we are succeeding. We need a reality check,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

 “The rates of child abuse have been rocketing up for the last decade – even before the flawed anti-smacking law was passed and the Family Violence awareness campaign began. Between 2003 and 2007 alone, notifications more than doubled from 31,000 to 72,000. The latest statistics give no confidence that children are any safer.”

 “To label our atrocious statistics as ‘good news’ and ‘delightful’ is an insult to the victims. Government groups cannot attribute the increase to greater awareness and better practice. The rates have been increasing markedly well before the public awareness campaigns, and the increase in admissions to Starship Hospital alone are proof that the problem is deterioriating.” [Read more…]

Family Violence is not a Gender Issue: Point of View

by Leave a Comment

How welcome it was to read in the NZ Herald of Wednesday 23rd November 2011 an article by Family First’s Bob McCoskrie headed “Why I won’t be wearing the White Ribbon”. [Family First NZ is a registered charity with the Charities Commission].

It is of course a  practice each 25th November marked by some men to show that they do not condone “men’s violence against women”, and apparently led by the Families Commission. However McCoskrie maintains that “this is a family violence issue, not a gender issue.” 

I couldn’t agree more, and sent off to McCoskrie the following:-

 “Congratulations on your superb article in today’s (Nov. 23rd) NZ Herald. It is a breath of fresh air after over thirty-odd years of rabid feminist propaganda. 

 I believe this has done  nothing for the domestic violence problem and gravely defamed good family men in the process. “

For years I have endeavoured to show that feminist, anti-family women’s refuges – recipients of monstrous amounts of public money – should not be presented as the only places for such troubled women to go to for help; that there are pro-family, church-based ones also, and that women in such need should also have this choice open to them.” 

Talk about the hackneyed socialist cry “a woman’s right to choose”! In this respect, sheer hypocrisy more like! “ 

The McCoskrie article was followed next day in the Herald by a response from Families Commissioner Carl Davidson, who opined that the former “is likely to be a lone voice” with his decision not to wear such a ribbon. Oh yes? Thankfully not all have been taken in by the ongoing ideologically driven hoopla which has surrounded the domestic violence issue for the past thirty-odd years.  [Read more…]

Abuse of alcohol at Toast Martinborough wine festival

by Leave a Comment

GROSSLY intoxicated young women, some incontinent and smeared in their own blood, are a symptom of  Toast Martinborough wine festival’s “feral” drinking culture, police warn.

“If their mothers could see them, they’d shut the festival down tomorrow,” the officer in charge of the event, Sergeant Kevin Basher, said.

Martinborough residents have joined him in warning that the once-civilised wine lovers’ event is now a mass booze-up that risks spilling into violence.

Mr Basher, who called Sunday’s event the worst in seven years, said yesterday that steel container “drunk tanks” might have to be used in future and that officers might need to carry batons to counter unruly drunks….

Festival organisers met police yesterday after reports of at least a dozen brawls. One man was admitted to hospital after being knocked unconscious.

A Martinborough local said The Square was full of drunks on Sunday night. “The atmosphere was getting quite nasty. It’s not the Toast it used to be.”

Police say some wineries appear to have breached liquor licencing laws by continuing to serve people who are clearly intoxicated. One vineyard encouraged festival-goers to scull full glases of wine.

“We’re still seeing people who are grossly intoxicated, especially young women falling all over the place in various states of disrepair [defecating] everywhere and covered in blood,” Mr Basher said.

A dompost.co.nz poll yesterday asked if drunken behaviour at Toast Martinborough was out of control.

Of more than 900 respondents, 55.3 per cent agreed, saying it was not pleasant when so many people were drunk. Another 36.9 per cent said it was just the actions of a few and everyone else had a great time. Nearly 8 per cent were undecided. The survey concluded that the event was “Out of Control”

Toast Martinborough chairman Richard Riddiford, who started the event 20 years ago, played down the alcohol problems. “We’re talking about a very, very, small percentage of [the 11,500] festival-goers.

[Clearly neither the police who attended nor 55.3% of the 900 responddents to the Dompost survey, attempted to “play down the alcohol problems”, as Mr Riddiford did].

Source: “Police warn of ‘feral’ festival, The Dominion Post, Tuesday, November 22, 2011, p. 1.