SPCS — Page 76 — SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Calls by Coalition of children’s charities for Google to block child porn after murder link

June 1, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Internet search companies such as Google have come under pressure to block child pornography after a children’s charity said that the sites “fuel the fantasies” of paedophiles who then sexually assault children.

As Mark Bridger was jailed for life for the abduction and murder of 5-year-old April Jones, the NSPCC said there was a “worrying link” between his looking at indecent images online and the crime he went on to commit.

Bridger’s laptop contained a cache of images of children being raped and abused. Police found a horror film in his video recorder paused at a violent rape.

Last month, Stuart Hazell was jailed for the murder of Tia Sharpe, his partner’s 12-year-old granddaughter. During his trial the Old Bailey heard that he had used his computer to search for terms including “violent forced rape” and “incest”.

Bridger, like Hazell, had no previous convictions for sexual offences. Both went from viewing indecent images straight to the worst class of offending.

With no gradual escalation in behaviour, there was nothing to suggest they were a threat to children and to alert police.

Child protection charities say web companies could introduce online warnings, threatening possible prosecution when users attempt to access explicit sites.

There have been calls for Google to introduce their “safe search” option as a default setting, which would automatically block hard-core pornography and make it far more difficult for children to access accidentally.

John Carr, the British Government’s adviser on internet safety and secretary of a children’s charities coalition on the subject, has said: “Google can do more and should do more.”

Scott Rubin, Google’s director of communications and public affairs, said: “Google has a zero-tolerance policy on child sexual abuse content. When we discover child abuse imagery or are made aware of it, we respond quickly to remove and report it to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.”

Story By Martin Evans. The New Zealand Herald. Saturday 1 June 2013

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10887728

Source: Daily Telegraph UK

Opinion: Tougher porn penalties long overdue – Editorial, Dominion Post

May 30, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

ON MONDAY Justice Minister Judith Collins announced the introduction of a bill to increase the penalties for the production, distribution and possession of child pornography. That same day, according to estimates by the United Nations about 200 new images of children being raped, sexually abused and tortured were circulated around the world.

The Objectionable Publications and Indecency Legislation Bill prepared by Ms Collins will not stop that evil trade. It will, however, help to curb it in New Zealand by putting repeat offenders where they belong – behind bars.

Contrary to the pathetic excuses offered by some who have been caught with child pornography in this country, possessing, viewing, and distributing it is not a “victimless” crime. By definition, its production relies on the sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

Without a demand for images of those sickening acts, that abuse would not occur. Sending the strongest possible deterrent to those who trade in it will help reduce the demand.

Despite the fact child pornography causes such misery, New Zealand courts have shown an inexplicable reluctance to take those who indulge in it out of circulation. According to Ms Collins, only about one in three who are convicted are jailed. Her bill will help address that by creating a presumption of imprisonment for anyone convicted of a second or subsequent offence. It will also double the maximum penalty for the possession, import or export of child pornography from five years’ jail to 10 years and increase the maximum for distributing or promoting such material from 10 years to 14.

The bill will also expand the definition of possessing child pornography so that it includes people who view it on their computers, but do not download the images., That will close a loophole that has allowed some offenders to get away scot-free.

Finally, it will tackle the scourge of adults who use the internet and cell and smart phone technology to groom young people for sex by making it an offence to have indecent communications with anyone aged under 18.

Together with a second bill that will allow the victims of serious sexual and violent offences to have their attackers banned from contacting them or living or working near them. Ms Collins has prepared a suite of changes that will go a long way towards protecting society’s most vulnerable victims.

However, the Government must also put its money where its mouth is. The same day Ms Collins unveiled her intention to get tougher on offenders, sexual violence agencies warned they were struggling to help victims because of funding constraints.

In some cases, young rape victims are waiting up to three months to get a counsellor, depriving them of an important aspect of their recovery from major trauma.

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has ordered a nationwide review into where funding for such services comes from, and where it actually goes. Like the measures Ms Collins is proposing, that work cannot be completed soon enough.

Source:

Editorial Opinion.

The Dominion Post. Tuesday, May 30, 2013.

Rainbow Wellington: Political advocacy of a charity supporting “LGBTI communities”

May 28, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Rainbow Wellington – The Wellington Rainbow Network Incorporated is a registered Charity (No. CC43245 registered on 30/06/08) that was incorporated as a Society (Inc. No. 854300) on 15/07/1997 under the name “GAP-The Business and Professionals Association Incorporated”. Its name was changed from GAP to “The Wellington Rainbow Network Incorporated” on 19/05/2007 and it is widely recognised as having engaged in political advocacy as one of its primary (unstated) objects for years. Such advocacy work tends to go on under under the radar and is largely unnoticed by those who think the Network’s focus is on the more “visible” activities such as financing “events” for the “lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender, and intersex (l,g.b,t,i) communities”.

An article published on GayNZ.com on 26th May 2013 provides reflections from Tony Simpson who has just stepped down after “the best part of a decade” on the Rainbow Wellington Board, mostly as chair. He reflects on some of his proudest RW [Rainbow Wellington] moments and the issues he thinks are most important moving ahead.

“Although RW tends to work under the radar and so its achievements go mostly unnoticed I would count among our successes: getting a major international insurance company to change its application forms to exclude some highly offensive personal questions.

“We have also been instrumental in reaching a position at our initiative with the Salvation Army which ensures that for the immediate future they will at worst remain neutral in any controversy over gay rights and at best take an active support role on some other issues if RW wants to build on it.

“It was also partly our pressure which narrowed the criteria for excluding gay men from blood donation.”

Tony Simpson says the group has also successfully prosecuted a couple of cases in the Human Rights Commission, one against the Blood Service, the other against the ANZ Bank, arising from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

“We have made our submissions to various Select Committees on legislation of interest to LGBTI people and, I flatter myself, had some effect on the outcomes, most latterly the marriage amendment legislation.

“We were able to bring a number of trans issues to the fore also by keeping up the pressure to have the recommendations of ‘To Be Who I Am’ implemented.

“My only regret is that I didn’t bring the blood donation matter to a final and successful conclusion although that is under way and there should be a further official review of international best practise this year.”

Source: http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/45/article_13401.php

The “Objects” of this charity/lobby group are available on the Charities website www.charities.govt.nz

Objects:

Rainbow Wellington is a non-profit association that aims to communicate with and educate the community at large on lesbian, gay,bisexual, transgender, and intersex (l,g.b,t,i) issues by:

1. Promoting a strong and positive sense of community for members of lgbti communities, in particular but not exclusively for those who are members of Rainbow Wellington, by encouraging social interaction, co-ordinating events of interest to them and celebrating our communities.

2. Offering support and encouragement to members of lgbti communities affected by discrimination and prejudice, and pursuing redress of discriminatory issues by engaging in public debate on such issues so that all those in lgbti communities enjoy the human rights available to all New Zealand citizens.

3 Providing financial assistance through grants and donations for individuals and groups undertaking specific activities that advance the causes of lgbti people.

4. Affiliating with and offering support to other organisations pursuing objectives consistent with those of Rainbow Wellington.

__________

The whole purpose of this pressure (lobby) group seems to be to highlight the alleged denial of human rights to members of the glbti communities.

See: http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/

Rainbow Wellington is a group representing the interests of, and organising social functions and activities for, lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and related people in the greater Wellington region. We have about a hundred and thirty core members, individual, business and corporate, and a wider contact list of several further hundred gltb people. We publish regular electronic newsletters giving notice of our various activities, and keeping members and friends up to date on current events of interest.

We take up issues of concern to our community in the human rights field. We have, for example, recently been pursuing the limitations on blood donation by gay men, and are urging the government to fully implement the Human Rights Commission report on transgender discrimination. We also are currently taking a lead in initiatives to end homophobic bullying in schools, and have taken up such issues as single gender parent adoption and the gay marriage option.

RW Campaigns [involving political advocacy] include:

Civil and Human Rights in New Zealand

Employment Relations Bill
Salvation Army

Meetings with Political parties

Education (Freedom of Association) Amend Bill

See article on glbt lobby group Rainbow Wellington – “The great gay blood donation debate”. 15 November 2009.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/7/article_8146.php

See article – “Rainbow WGN’s bad blood over gay ban”. 20 June 2008.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/2/printer_6103.php

The Partial defence of provocation
Homophobic abuse at the Stadium

Foreign Policy & Human Rights

Insurance – positive outcomes

Submission on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Written by Tony Simpson.

http://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/32/article_12551.php

See: http://www.rainbowwellington.org.nz/Issues.htm

‘Same sex Marriage bill’ – now law: what it means for churches – Craig Vernall

May 28, 2013 by SPCS 1 Comment

Senior Pastor, Craig Vernall, National Leader of the NZ Baptist Union, has notified all Baptist pastors registered as marriage celebrants (on the Baptist List) with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, that they are expressly forbidden to perform civil unions and same sex marriages under Baptist Administration Manual policy (put in place by the Baptist Assembly Council). Nor can they or any other Baptist celebrant perform such ceremonies in a private capacity, because they are only authorised to their (statutory function) role as marriage celebrants, based on the Call they have to the local Baptist congregation, and having accepted that Call, they are duty-bound to uphold the policies etc. of the NZ Baptist Union (of NZ churches). Vernall has written (NZ Baptist magazine. May 2013, p. 20):

With the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill passing into law in August this year it’s time for us to consider how our churches should respond to this new legislation.

During the months leading up to the Definition of Marriage Bill being passed, there have been a variety of opinions from both sides of the debate. A very small number of Baptist pastors have indicated to me that they would consider marrying a same sex couple, but admitted this didn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their congregations.

I mention this because Baptist churches maintain a unique relationship with their pastors when it comes to the pastor’s right to conduct weddings. Baptists are firstly a movement of local churches. When a Baptist church calls a pastor, that pastor then has the ability to become a Registered Baptist pastor. Being registered then qualifies the pastor to become a celebrant on the Baptist list which is held by the Government appointed Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

So the ability for a Baptist Pastor to perform a wedding is linked directly to the Call given to him or her by their local Baptist church. This means the authority to perform a wedding belongs to the church, not the pastor. The pastor fulfils this function as a ministry of the church, but not by their own authority.

In recognition of this, the Assembly Council has made adjustments to the policy schedule in the Baptist Administration Manual because we believe this reflects the will of our Baptist churches and the Bible.

The Baptist Administration Manual includes policy covering Marriage and Civil Unions. This is found within ‘The Local Church” Appendix 2-M “Policy on Marriage and Civil Unions.”

This policy precludes Baptist pastors from conducting civil unions or the use of Baptist church buildings for such a ceremony. It was the Assembly Council’s decision, at their April 2013 meeting, to update this policy to include same sex marriage alongside civil unions as a ceremony we cannot condone. The Baptist Administration Manual will reflect this decision in due course.

A number of our pastors have asked questions about their protection under the law with respect to their wish not to perform same sex marriages. It is my understanding that church ministers are not legally required to perform a same sex marriage and that this decision will be protected in law as the legislation is finalised in the coming months.

Neither will Baptist churches have to surrender their buildings for same sex ceremonies. Our buildings are operated under our own authority. If your church congregation is worried about this it would be advisable to adopt the Baptist Administration Manual policies on Marriage and Sexuality and Marriage and Civil Unions (“The Local Church”, Appendix 2M and Appendix 2F Addendum 2) into your church’s constitution. Contact the Baptist Resource Centre for more information.

It will take some time for the dust to settle on this new law. For most of us it will be church business as usual. I’m anticipating that the first point of conflict won’t be with the churches, but with the independent marriage celebrants or court employed marriage registrars who don’t want to perform a same sex marriage for conscience reasons. They are very vulnerable under the present law and will need our support if they wish to defend their personal convictions. The Resource Centre has already been approached by a couple of civil celebrants seeking to be placed on our Baptist celebrants’ list. Unfortunately we cannot do this because the list is specifically reserved for Registered or Accredited Baptist ministers.

A second area of continued debate was highlighted by Green MP Kevin Hague who was quoted in the NZ Herald as saying he, “has drafted a private members bill which would overhaul adoption laws and remove all restrictions to adoption by same sex couples.” (NZ Herald 20th April). The New Zealand public may have something to say about this as the change will deny the rights of a child, in law, to have both a mother and a father.

During the course of the debate, a number of our pastors made the suggestions that Baptists could simply opt out of the marriage celebrant system. That is, hand back our marriage celebrant’s licences to the state. This would leave the state to conduct the legal part of a marriage ceremony and the church would then conduct the wedding as a purely Christian covenant.

This is common practice throughout much of Europe and Central America. It provides a very attractive civil strategy for those of us who are deeply disappointed in our democracy. The Assembly Council discussed this option, but felt that by doing this we Baptists would simply remove ourselves from any future debate around the subject.

On ANZAC Day I joined thousands of other New Zealanders to commemorate and remember the price paid for our democratic freedoms. As I reflect upon what our democracy has given us over the past 150 years I would prefer to ask forgiveness from the men and women who laid down their lives for our democracy.

Is our society a better place since we passed laws such as lowering the drinking age to 18, legalised casinos, decriminalised prostitution and now allowed for same sex marriage? It’s difficult not to sound like some moralising old wowser, but when I saw the results of a text poll carried out by TV’s Campbell Live revealing that 78% of New Zealanders were against same sex marriage, I feel I’m not alone. I don’t think this latest change in the nature and status of marriage was God’s will for our country, and I’m quietly confident that many of those ANZACS who are fallen and now silent would agree with me.

Source

Marriage bill: what it means for churches

NZ Baptist Vol, 129 No.4. 1 May 2013, p. 20.

Craig Vernall is senior pastor at Bethlehem Baptist Church Bethlehem, Tauranga, New Zealand.

Note:

The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill has been widely referred to in the media as the ‘Same sex marriage bill’.

Google MUST block access to illegal and ‘disgusting’ porn, says coalition of children’s charities

May 27, 2013 by SPCS Leave a Comment

Google MUST block access to illegal and ‘disgusting’ porn, says coalition of children’s charities. John Carr, the British government’s adviser on internet safety and secretary of the charity coalition, said the Daily Mail was right to highlight the problem.[The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc., a New Zealand registered charity, agrees wholeheartedly with the position taken by John Carr, the Daily Mail and the Coalition].

See: Daily Mail On line Article. By Sean Poultier, Consumer Affairs Editor. 26 May 2013 (link below).

Charities want blocking software and on-screen warnings to deny access
Group include NSPCC, Barnado’s, Action for Children, Children’s Society
Comes after investigation by Mail columnist Amanda Platell into the issue
Was prompted into action by case of Stuart Hazell, killer of Tia Sharpe, 12
Child pornography had fuelled his murderous fantasies

Charities have demanded urgent action to prevent access to illegal and ‘disgusting’ child pornography via Google and other web browsers.

A coalition of organisations is arguing for the introduction of blocking software and on-screen warnings to deny internet users access to the material.

The group includes the NSPCC, Barnado’s, Action for Children, BAAF, Beat Bullying, Children England, Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, Kidscape, and Stop It Now.

Their call follows revelations in the Daily Mail on Saturday about the ease of finding video and photos of the sexual exploitation of young girls.

The investigation by Mail columnist Amanda Platell was prompted by the case of Stuart Hazell, killer of 12-year-old Tia Sharp, whose murderous fantasies were fuelled by online child pornography.

But the group, the UK Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, questioned if firms like Google have the will to take action.

John Carr, government adviser on internet safety and secretary of the charity coalition, said the Mail was right to highlight the problem.

‘Google can do more and should do more,’ he said. ‘For example, whenever someone puts in a search that clearly indicates they are looking for child pornographic material, Google could flash up a warning.

‘It could say “You are trying to reach child pornographic material. This is illegal and if you persist there is a chance of arrest and prosecution”.’ Google’s web browser has three levels of filtering – ‘unfiltered’, ‘moderate’ and ‘safe’.

« Previous Page

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: