SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Cyber bullies could face jail under new Government plan

by Leave a Comment

Cyber bullies could be sent to jail for up to three years under new Government proposals aimed at protecting victims of online bullying.

“Tormenters are able to harass their targets 24 hours a day, seven days a week, wherever they go, and the trail of abuse lives on in cyberspace, following victims for years,” Justice Minister Judith Collins said.

The proposals include creating a new offence of incitement to commit suicide, even in situations when a person does not attempt to take their own life, punishable by up to three years imprisonment.

It would also be an offence to send messages and post material online that was grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, menacing or knowingly false, punishable by up to three months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.

An approved agency would be set up as the first port of call for complaints, while serious complaints could be taken to the district court, which would be able to issue sanctions including take-down orders.

“People needing help will get fast support including liaison with website hosts and ISPs to request take-down or moderation of clearly offensive posts,” Collins said.

“No one should ever be subject to this kind of cowardly attack – now with the right support and modern laws in place, victims will no longer have to suffer.”

Netsafe executive director Martin Cocker said the proposals reflected, almost entirely, recommendations made last year by the Law Commission.

“We think they are a really sensible set of proposals. What happened through the process is that both issues of cyber bullying and the need to protect freedom of speech and opinions on the internet were considered. So the final proposals are a balanced approach to combating cyber bullying, in our opinion.”

He cautioned that, while it was relatively easy to write legislation, it was difficult to make those laws practically enforceable on the internet. The new proposals sought to do that through a new agency and new powers.

The interesting part for Netsafe was the idea of an approved agency to try to coordinate complainants and those harassing them into a solution without having to go to court, Cocker said.

“There is a realistic likelihood of a positive outcome under that model.”

The proposals for new offences for which people could be sent to prison were aimed at addressing a gap in the law.

Technology was being used in ways that were offensive and harmful and law enforcement agencies did not have clarity about how to deal with such problems.

“There is a sector that works pretty hard to protect the internet against any sort of controls and … that sector will always be uneasy about new regulations, but I think the new regulations did take their concerns into consideration,” Cocker said.

“It’s important to recognise that these proposals aren’t about controlling the internet or filtering or putting mechanisms onto the internet. These proposals are focused on people causing the harm and people being harmed.”

Collins said under the proposals harassment, privacy and human rights laws would be amended to ensure the were up-to-date for digital communications.

Source: Cyber  bullies face jail under new Govt plan. Story by Michael Daly. 4 April 2013

http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/8507497/Cyber-bullies-face-jail-under-new-Govt-plan

Fairfax NZ News

Louisa Wall MP: Background to sponsor of ‘Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Bill

by Leave a Comment

Labour List MP Louisa Wall, sponsor of the Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Bill which renders the concepts of “marriage”, “mother” “father”, “bride” and “bridegroom” meaningless by its proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955, has stated, dogmatically:

“I’ve never not been out. I think I realised I was gay in my late teens and from then on I’ve had female partners. For me, it’s always been a part of who I am, so I’ve never felt a need not to share that.” [Emphasis added].

The vast majority of New Zealanders will genuinely struggle to comprehend the meaning of her claims. Whilst apparently sincere, they appear imaginery and fictional. She is so very dogmatic! – “I’ve never not been out“. Presumably she actually believes she has been a lesbian from birth – i.e. ‘hard-wired’ genetically to be sexually attracted only to women. If so, she has never provided any evidence for this and such a claim is not supported in the scientific literature (i.e. empirical scientific proof of the existence of a so-called gay gene).

What then do her dogmatic claims actually mean, if anything? They appear to be meaningless and delusional. For a start she contradicts her claim about never not being “out” when she says she thinks she first came to the realisation of her ‘orientation’ in her “late teens” and only “from then on .. had female partners.” Perhaps she could tell the public how she knows as a fact that her lesbian ‘sexual orientation’ already existed from her infancy to “late teens”.

If a heterosexual male sportsman claimed in an interview with Woman’s Weekly that he had “never not been out as heterosexual”, would any of the thousands of discerning, rational-minded scholarly readers of the magazine have queried the meaning of such a claim and/or perhaps even raised queries about the validity or truthfulness of this claim? Of course they would, many of them no doubt! Some might have wondered if he had suffered a “brain fade” like John Key or David Shearer, not regarding an investment portfolio or a failure to disclose a pecuniary interest to parliament, but with regard to his sexual identity.

This example illustrates how homosexuals have captured the language by using words such as “out” and denoting a ‘meaning’ to it that serves the exclusive homosexual agenda, but makes no sense when used  by a heterosexual. A whole series of oxymorons arise when such words are used together with the word “heterosexual”: e.g. “gay-heterosexual” and “out-heterosexual”. The absurdity of the concept of “gay-marriage”/ “same-sex marriage” is plain to see for any rational person who has not been seduced/taken-in by the emotional appeal/deception of the pro-“same-sex marriage” homosexual activists.

But is it even possible for a heterosexual to “out” himself or herself? Clearly homosexuals do “it” on a regular basis, on national TV etc. to score international headlines. But the very idea of a Maori sports-star  MP “outing” himself/herself to colleagues in parliament in a Maiden Speech, as a heterosexual i.e. confessing one’s attraction to persons of the opposite sex, is preposterous! So why have MPs and the New Zealand public tolerated and applauded the ‘courage’ and “honesty’ of current Labour homosexual MPs such as Louisa Wall and Maryan Street, and Green MP Kevin Hague, for using the vehicle of the House of Representatives to “out” themselves to the New Zealand public? Why have these homosexuals felt it necessary to foist such ‘important’ information related to their intimate private affairs-‘sexual orientation’, onto the rest of us using the platform of parliament?

Clearly such well-orchestrated homosexual disclosures, are part of a deliberate political agenda – driven by highly questionable tactics and ethics – to use parliament to secure alleged “human rights” for a “gay” minority – a class defined only by its sexual activities involving same-sex attraction rather than opposite sex attraction. The “social change” these activists champion is  fixated in sex – on their so-called “human-rights” agenda that if accepted and enshrined into law, will normalise sodomy and other practices engaged in by homosexuals and ‘elevate’ (so they believe) them to a new status on a par with heterosexual marriage. It is all part of the plan to try and destigmatise homosexual sexual practices and gain acceptance for their lifestyle.

The homosexual crusade for “gay rights” including “same-sex marriage”, is based on a series of false premises such as the claim that “marriage equality is a human right”. Contrary to their delusional claims, heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different from homosexual ‘marriage’, as the former involves the union of opposite sexes, while the latter does not. Equality does NOT mean the same in the context of marriage, as they falsely claim.

All people of the same sex do not have equal rights to get married, as a number of categories (see Schedule 2 of the Act) among those of the same sex (e.g. men) are excluded. For example, under the Civil union law and under the proposed bill, a man A cannot marry his same-sex civil union partner’s father (father of B), subsequent to and in the event of A-B’s same-sex civil union (or ‘marriage’) being dissolved. The law forbids it. However, another man, unrelated to A and B can marry B’s father under the proposed bill.

Women’s Weekly reported:

“The 41-year-old’s passion for social change is what led her [Louisa Wall] into politics.

“Already in a civil union with partner Prue Tamatekapua , a lawyer specialising in Treaty of Waitangi issues, the couple ­first met through the Maori Women’s Welfare League in 2007.

“The new bill will mean that couples in a civil union can simply ­fill in a form to change their status to that of a married couple. But Louisa and Prue aren’t going down that route.

“Louisa and mother-of-two Prue had their ceremony at Te Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier, Auckland, where 200 guests helped celebrate their union in 2010.

“While comfortable with her own personal situation, Louisa believes it’s vitally important for individuals and couples to have options. “We made the decision to have a civil union, but for Charles Chauvel [a gay Labour MP] and his partner, that wasn’t good enough – they decided to go to Canada and get married.”

“… there is only one thing missing in Louisa’s life – a baby. While she would love to be a mother and has tried to conceive in the past, her efforts have been unsuccessful.”

Here we learn that Louisa and her partner Prue Tamatekapua have no intention of changing their civil union relationship to a marriage, even if Wall’s legally flawed bill becomes law. Instead of fighting for hers and Prue’s right’s, Louisa says she is fighting for the rights of other homosexuals to be able to get married. If so, Prue and Louise will never be “spouses” in law, if the bill becomes law, and will be unable to adopt children as a same-sex couple. With the biological clock ticking any woman (lesbian or heterosexual), truly wanting to have her own baby, will need the ‘services’ of at least one person from the opposite sex known as “male” to produce a child.

The term “same-sex marriage” is meaningless once the real unique distinction (relative to other types of relationships) of marriage, based on the exclusive one male-one-female nature of the relationship, is broken down by adding same-sex couples to the traditional marriage mix. For this reason there must remain a separate category-status distinction in law that recognises marriage as an exclusive relationship between two opposite sex partners.

Source of quotes:

Labour MP Louisa Wall: Fighting for our rights. By Vicky Tyler

Women’s Weekly. 28th March 2013

http://www.nzwomansweekly.co.nz/celebrity/labour-mp-louisa-wall-fighting-for-our-rights/

Same-sex ‘marriage’: What would the Greeks have thought of this oxymoron?

by Leave a Comment

It is ironic that the proponents of homosexuality [and the oxymoron “same-sex marriage”] so often point to ancient Greece as their paradigm because of its high state of culture and its partial acceptance of homosexuality or, more accurately, pederasty.

[Pederasty = sexual relations between a man and a boy (usually anal intercourse with the boy as a passive partner). Oxymoron = A figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side.]

Though some ancient Greeks did write paeans to homosexual love, it did not occur to any of them to propose homosexual relationships as the basis for marriage in their societies. The only homosexual relationship that was accepted was between an adult male and a male adolescent [pederasty]. This relationship was to be temporary, as the youth was expected to get married and start a family as soon as he reached maturity.

The idea that someone was a “homosexual” for life or had this feature as a permanent identity would have struck them as more than odd. In other words, “homosexuality”, for which a word in Greek did not exist at the time (or in any other language until the late 19th century), was purely transitory. It appears that many of these mentoring relationships in ancient Greece were chaste and that the ones that were not rarely involved sodomy. Homosexual relationships between mature male adults were not accepted. This is hardly the idealized homosexual paradise that contemporary “gay” advocates harken back to in an attempt to legitimize behavior that would have scandalized the Greeks.

What is especially ironic is that ancient Greece’s greatest contribution to Western civilization was philosophy, which discovered that the mind can know things, as distinct from just having opinions about them, that objective reality exists, and that there is some purpose implied in its construction.

The very idea of Nature and natural law arose as a product of this philosophy, whose first and perhaps greatest exponents, Socrates and Plato, were unambiguous in their condemnation of homosexual acts as unnatural. In the Laws, Plato’s last book, the Athenian speaker says that, “I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust.” (Laws636C; see also Symposium of Xenophon, 8:34, Plato’s Symposium, 219B-D).

To read more go to:

What would the Greeks have thought of gay marriage?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_would_the_greeks_have_thought_of_gay_marriage

 

Louisa Wall MP and the “gay marriage” ‘poster boy’ Emperor Nero

by Leave a Comment

Astonishingly, Roman Emperor Nero’s same-sex marriage (SSM) was raised in the First Reading of  the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment bill – on 29 August 2012 – by both the bill’s sponsor, Labour MP, Ms Louisa Wall, and National MP for Wairarapa, John Hayes, who opposes it.

Hayes, who voted against the bill at first and second reading, stated:

“Some [of my] constituents point out that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and predates even the Bible as a foundation for our society. To them I would note that Roman Emperor Nero entered into a marriage with a male slave.”

First century Rome might have permitted SSM between men, but most people know that it also permitted incestuous marriage – a criminal offence under our law. SSM has deep links historically with the practice of incest.

Nero reportedly at age 16, married his half-sister. He also reportedly married two men, taking the role of bride to a former slave, Pythagoras, and the role of groom to a man named Sporus.

Nero might be a “poster boy” for those advocating early SSMs for men, but he was renowned for his vile acts of brutality and depravity. These reportedly included ordering the execution of his mother, kicking to death his pregnant second wife and executing countless people. Nero had a deep hatred of first-century Christians, many of whom he had thrown to dogs, others crucified, and others burned alive as flaming torches to serve as nightly illumination for has gardens.

Louisa Wall stated in her First Reading speech:

“Marriage as an institution pre-dates government and Christianity. It has been part of civilisations and cultures and has, over that time, changed dramatically. Same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero.”

Both Wall and Hayes appear to hold the view that Nero’s SSM  has some sort of relevance to the issue of what constitutes marriage. It does not. The morally debauched ‘lifestyle’ of a serial sexual pervert and criminal (murderer) should not be taken into account when considering the meaning of marriage.

The simple truth is that Wall is at odds with the majority of mainstream New Zealanders, in her attempts to force SSM onto New Zealand society.

Reference

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Hansard Record: Vol. 683, page 4913.

Louisa Wall and Emperor Nero’s perverted same-sex ‘marriage’ !!

by Leave a Comment

Ms Louisa Wall, who hit the headlines as New Zealand’s  “first Maori lesbian MP”, has highlighted in the House of Representatives the fact that “same-sex marriage between men was not uncommon in the days of the Roman emperor Nero”, during the course of her First Reading speech in support of her private member’s bill – the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. She and her supporters are determined to force upon all New Zealanders an acceptance of “same-sex marriage” as  normative, when most either view it as a gross moral perversion that is detrimental to the public good and/or oppose it because they do not believe the bill achieves anything meaningful for homosexuals beyond what is already open to them in civil unions.

At its first two readings, the majority of MPs voted in support of Louisa Wall’s bill that seeks to have the State amend the Marriage Act 1955 to allow for “same-sex marriage”, despite the fact that it is a demonstrably meaningless concept: “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron.

Does Ms Wall not know that Roman Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus—a fanatical devotee of Jupiter and Minerva—was the most depraved monster that ever disgraced the annals of history? Is she not aware that the name Nero is proverbial for murder, rape, sodomy, incest, cruelty, and every kind of crime imaginable?

In 65 AD, the mad Pontiff Nero crowned all his other debauches by a same-sex ‘marriage’. Nero ‘married’ a male look-alike of his murdered wife Poppaea Sabina.

For more on the perverted same-sex ‘marriage’ of Nero, heralded by Ms Louisa Wall, go to:

http://www.reformation.org/perverted-marriage-of-nero.html