Want Some Answers ???Intro
State of our Nation, New Zealand
Government from 2000-08 was the most sex corrupt government we have ever had. Elected for 3 terms (9 years)
because New Zealand is home of the loony left. Many in our country apparently are oblivious to good moral character. When
President Clinton committed lewd conduct in Office, New Zealand polls said, 'long as he does his job, his private life doesn't matter'. So for
Heads of State in public Office New Zealander's voted in alcoholics, de facto's, homosexual activists, transvestites often big talkers, but morally
illiterate. New Zealander's say their 'personal life doesn't matter', but it does - what one believes effects their action.
They get into power and change the country. Labour appointed a homosexual activist as Minister of Education. Helen Clark called him a
'hard working and conscientious member.' He previously worked as an examiner for the Video Recording Office assessing
porn films and wrote to me,
"I teach my children that it doesn't matter who they form a relationship with...That is the kind of New Zealand I am fighting for. I will continue to do so despite your protests...."
No room to discuss, couldn't care what you think. Intolerant? If it "doesn't matter who" what of incest, prostitutes, paedophilia, animals? Nothing's 'out' if 'it doesn't matter who' (Few realise, but the "GLBTI" promote these they want "total sexual freedom"). He wrote -
"I utterly reject your right to judge me or anyone else like me...."
Notice how 'judgments' are prohibited and kids encouraged into sex. He promotes what is a crime against nature and rejects any 'right' to any other view. Isn't that discrimination? What will be the lower standard of the next generation? Something no one ever thought should be tolerated. What will be the next "freedom", "equality" or "tolerance"? That even today's activists will be shocked and called "bigots".
The Sodomites who ruled Sodom determined 'rights'. Telling Lot “Get out of our way" and denied his right to “judge” them (Gen.19:9). They didn't “listen” to complaints (Jgs.19:2). When finally getting all their ‘rights’, they kill (Judges 19: 22-30). Today, it’s now illegal to utter words hurtful to Sodomites.
It was once legal in NZ before 1986 and New Zealander's NEVER considered this acceptable before then. But today (2013) we have a homosexual media. The NZ Herald BOAST they "urged Parliament to" change the law in 1986 to "decriminalise homosexual acts" (150 Years of Great New Zealanders, Fran Wilde, 13 Nov.2013 p.F89). I bet they never realised that would open the door for the flood of 'homosexual acts' with kids and child porn of today. And our Auckland City Council promote, fund (with tax payers money) and encourage (every way they can) to get people involved (kids too) in homosexual parades.
In just 28 short years things have changed that much. By that rate of change, NOTHING consider immorally disgraceful TODAY could not be promoted TOMORROW.
The Herald newspaper posted me free issues for a month “celebrating” their “150 years” of publication. I know they promote prostitution, this time, some of their articles were –
The Anti-Smackers: (anti-punishment) The thinking today is 'some kids are born naughty so shouldn't be punished'. Some are 'born gay' and its wrong to council into normal behaviour. Correction is wrong. So the Green's and Labour Party insist smacking causes kids to "grow up violent". Strange logic indeed if children are punished for doing wrong they will grow up violent. Labour and the Greens intentionally confused the words 'beating' with 'smacking' calling both 'violence'. And were silent about kids learning wresting, judo, boxing or karate. For years, a network from Primary to High School exists and hundreds of kids trained in violence. Government's spend "millions" in support. Called 'self-defence' (apparently 'good violence') but ironically also called 'Social Development' and 'family violence funding' (Western Leader pg1. 19/5/2011). We get flyers in our letter boxes to come join the local "Family Karate Club" at "Edmonton Primary School". Where are the anti-smacking politicians? Strangely silent (no new laws against dangerous dogs in New Zealand - Pit bull Terrier's and Rottweiler's ripping the faces off kids).
In 1941 the death penalty was abolished but reinstated for murder. And finally abolished again in 1961. Because that's "The only way to ensure its not imposed on people unnecessarily". Indeed some in jail might be 'innocent'. So are jails not working? Answer: abolish jail, open the doors (Yeah right). We have not become a wiser or higher society, jails are full. Paradoxically today all physical correction is considered politically incorrect whether corporal, capital or smacking. The Green Party spokes - "person" (ashamed of their gender?) said concerning 'work' in jail that "there must be no element of punishment" and "prisoners must be very happy" (National Radio. 7:30 Morning Report. 30/1/13).
Removing punishment doesn't help offenders, it removes boundaries, dignity, and responsibilities. If no punishment, there's no self-esteem or sense of values. If we want a fair-society - then justice MUST be seen to be done by LAW, regardless of forgiveness or mercy. We have replaced 'punishment' with a wishy-washy social adjustment (talk) at cost to justice, the economy and victim. History shows nations with a low severity of punishment develop higher levels of lawlessness. These days the 'justice system' is very kind and gentle towards criminals. You can commit any number of serious crimes and serve only a short time or escape jail.
A smack in the right place, at the right time, in the right way, is NOT cruel. Punishment without Christian principles is cruel, violent, abusive and ineffective. So today it's become absurd: Parents mustn't smack children for correction (considered violence), yet unborn babies can be killed for convenience (not considered murder). We are not civilized by relaxing correction or punishment. The end result is injustice. If not, remove all forms of punishment and see what happens.
"I think a smack is very appropriate when they’re very young and cannot reason. A smack – and I’m talking a smack and not a beating – can be very appropriate for a child who’s trying to establish themselves as the authority and doesn’t recognise where the real authority lies and doesn’t have the mental capacity to engage in intelligent conversation. And I think it’s completely wrong for people to get on their politically correct bandwagon and saying ‘you may never smack a child and if you do that that’s child abuse". Paediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, [Director Paediatric Neurosurgery Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore] when visiting NZ and asked about our new anti-smacking law.
Anyone can see the difference between a smack and child abuse, but not Labour, the Greens or John Key. Carson's words will be appreciated by good kiwi parents doing their best to raise law abiding citizens in a non-abusive manner. The anti-smacking legislation is simply anti-parent. In 2007 NZ Parliament removed the right to use reasonable force to physically discipline children for correction. Key said, "If good parents start getting prosecuted, I'm going to change the law". Despite assurances to the contrary, families have been torn apart, accused of lying and dragged through the courts. Good parents who lightly smack their kids are criminalized - facing criminal convictions - paying thousands to courts. So today we punish parents for disciplining their children.
Sex Education today is MADNESS. With today's latest embrace of homosexualism its going to get FAR WORSE. Its all about programming and brainwashing kids, making sure they don't grow up with decently and standards. It started years ago targeting teenagers pretending to sound good innocent and with noble intentions. It was 'non-judgmental' (not 'imposing views on others') then became a free condom hand-out. Today its called 'obscenity in the class room.' We're had increasingly explicit graphitic comprehensive sex education in schools for years. Once it was illegal to make indecent material available to minors. No longer!! Sexually explicit material (R18 R20) is presented to teenagers in the name of "education" THIS is child abuse. Why the need to shock, shame and embarrass kids?
The problem with abortions and STD's was created and doubled over and over, today stats are shocking. Why? Family Planning and the National Radio "Panel" insist its because of "the religious conservative" who are critical of contraception. Their solution, "more education" and "more condoms" (National Radio, 'The Panel' 4/4/07 4:30) Since 2008 some schools even promote homosexual clubs. Any wonder regarding sexually abused kids "support services are not able to keep pace with the numbers of referrals" (National Radio 28/5/2013. 12:10). Four year olds "playing out adult sex acts in the play ground" (The NZ Herald. p.a9. 9/6/05) By some considered 'healthy'.
The future: public schools will encourage kids to use whatever toilet, changing rooms they want. Any sexual behaviour normalised and promoted. Porn used, made for children, (already). The LGQTB "Creating Change Conference" (USA) has multi-million dollar support, (by ignorant business, media, public and politicians) they plan for 'total sexual freedom'. None will stop them, there's only one hindrance to their plans.
ANYTHING Obscene or Offensive today will be Acceptable Tomorrow.
Rape no longer a criminal offence. Year 1 students indoctrinated into exploring each other sexually. Oh, that would never happen? Wrong, it will. People were once shocked, 'its unlawful'. Slowly it's 'tolerated', then accepted, then PROMOTED and ENCOURAGED by Law and taxpayers money. Objectors are scoffed at and criminalised.
EVERY new liberal media poll or survey prove this true. What happens when 40%-50% no longer believe something wrong? There's future consequences. Something even more questionable comes along. Law changes today have implications tomorrow. It's obvious how fashions, magazines and movies have changed over the years. There's no going back. Given this fact, based on today's trends, in the future child sex abuse will become 'normal', acceptable and considered good. The only few people who object will be considered 'religious fanatics' and the old 'homophobic bigots'.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority (have no standards)
Same-sex Adoption: This could turn into a legalised organised 'sex-trade'. Today we have problems unknown just 50 years ago - man-made problems. Two people, by their own 'queer' choice can't have children, because their relationship is unnatural. So they want special laws for their amusement to fix what's unnatural, kids become toys. There's plenty of evidence that if infants lack good role models they will have problems in life. If they have same sex parents their character will be severely affected. Brain development is unable to distinguish or learn the fundamentals of normal male or female behaviour. There are many things impossible to learn by dictatorial instruction. Its a fact, children model adult behaviour. But with two women, neither can be a father. With two men neither can be a mother. Depriving kids of mother and father intentionally is not only evil and wicked, it breaks down the fundamentals of a decent society. As all "openness and acceptance" of abnormal sexual behaviour causes a breakdown. Because (1) child abusers often re-offend (2) victims can abuse others (3) become sexually confused. A generation cycle exhibiting similar behaviour. There are people who KNOW this already and WANT to change society.
A 'Same-sex adoption law' condemn innocent kids to a life of 'care givers' who are anything but normal. At school - 'Johnny what's your daddy do for a living? He's embarrassed if he has 2 mothers or fathers. Its inhuman to take kids and place them in such a situation that would result in perverting their sexuality and robbing them of a normal life. The stated agenda of leading gender-activists is not just about removing the words mother and father, but corrupting kids. Schools compelled to teach what's unnatural, all feelings of shame, restraint or embarrassment removed so kids won't grow up 'homophobic'.
The Indecent Publication Tribunal needed to be set up in 1963 to determine increasing indecency in books. Today it (and the Film and Literature Board of Review) have a liberal agenda. The BSA have no standards, they are slow to act, act dumb, play games and neglect their duty. And find themselves in the High Court as a result. Classification Office fails its statutory duties. Extremely evil videos are submitted. To them the word "objectionable" is subject to interpretation. Eg., "brutal sexual violence and necrophilia" are now considered "entertainment". The end result is normalization, legitimization and desensitization. In a movie if someone is brutally beaten and raped because they did it to others, it's allowed to be seen. The lesson "just deserts are meted out" (par.131 Court 28/3/02). In 2009 the decriminalisation of porn opened a loophole allowing pornographers to target ANY AGE providing the advertisement is not pornographic in itself (Advertising Standards Authority decision (18/034 re. Vixen Direct promotional vehicle).
The previous Chief Film Sensor Bill Hastings (homosexual activist) "allowed more porn to pass than any other in the history of his office". Aided and supported by successive New Zealand governments on a $180-190,000 salary. For "20 YEARS" he watched extreme hard-core of the worse kind and said "studies show that repeated exposure to violence and sexual violence had an adverse effect on attitude..." yes he became utterly corrupt, banning videos considered "anti-gay". Previously his office never had the ability to ban free speech. But he couldn't interpret the law correctly because of his advocacy of homosexuality. "I suppose everybody brings to the job a little of what they are." (Radio New Zealand, National. 11:25. 30/11/04). Those who objected, he called "intolerant, fundamentalist and bigots" (gaynz.com). Finally in 2010 'he' decided to retire.
Long before then he was desensitized to toxic material and denied it. In contradiction said, "the harm normally comes from a diet where you see the same kind of violent acts over and over". Dominion Post 2/11/02). He suffered "over-exposure", sleaze didn't worry him.
Deputy Chief Censor. For over 2 years Labour's Minister George Hawkins failed his Statutory Duty to appoint a Deputy Censor so was prosecuted in court. Out of spite, he appointed a lesbian activist Nicola McCully as Deputy (on a $140 -105,000 salary) still in office today. Her only prior job experience was briefly a teachers aid (junior level). Now for years has viewed all manner of explicit material. "It's a myth that watching all these horrible things makes you blasé about them. You're more likely hyper-sensitive" ('Watching the Defectives' p.5-6 The Star Times 13/8/06). So why do we need more? They are utterly helpless and useless to stop the tidy wave flooding this country. Unlike the Office of Film and Literature Classification, which had prescriptive legislation to direct its work, she insists the BSA has a less definite framework to operate within. So only concerned with what might cause "injury to the public good". So if you "...don't like it... turn it off or change the channel". (NZ Herald 25 Jan 2012)
Successive Ministers of Internal Affairs fail their statutory duties. So pleased with all this they reappointed the whole Classification Office. Finally 22/12/1010 we have a new chief censor Dr Andrew Jack. But in all honesty, the only people really concerned about decency in this country are a few 'born again' Christians (who Helen Clark PM called "extreme"). So taxpayers are currently subsidizing the examination, classification and registration of hundreds of sleazy hardcore porn videos per year. Why doesn't the sleaze 'industry' and distributors cover ALL costs? The millions of dollars used to subsidize the 'sex industry' should go to hospitals.
Porn works like this. Public official watches it. Soon no longer shocked, thinks there's no harm. One day he announces the laws are old fashion. ‘All discrimination against homosexuals must stop’. We're shocked at this coming from him. Now he crusades and discriminates against anything pure and decent.
Disappearing Standards: The BSA decided [1/11/2010] that public free to air TV channels can now show full frontal nudity in news coverage as long as its deemed humourous. Any complaints? They will throw them out. No wonder we are drowning in sleazy literature in Gas stations, local Supermarkets, Books shops, Video stores and public Libraries. Even local corner dairy's sell porn and encourage gambling while buying 'milk and bread'. In the years to come out will go R16 and R18. How? By R18 becoming R16. Kidding porn and kids using obscene language in movies is on the way.
Free to air TV stations (TV.1, TV.2, TV.3, Prime TV) are drowning viewers with a diet of increasing filth. As if we are all perverts who can't get enough of their mindless trash. If you are dumb, you'll love Shortland Street, it's the dumbest program to ever come out of Television New Zealand. If you don't believe anybody can be so dumb, you haven't met the management of TV3. They allowed the "f" word during children's programs and protested before the Broadcasting Standards "Its hard to see how anyone can be up set" (National Radio. 12.10, 20/4/1011, Lawyer for TV3). Advertising on TV and radio is increasingly vulgar, reflecting the dirty minded idiots who write it. If TV broadcast a "Christian" program, they insist it "doesn't reflect the views of this channel". But lewd programs are relentlessly promoted and boasted as "only on" our channel and you "must watch".
In Jan., 2012 the new BSA chairman Peter Radich said standards of good taste and decency were changing..."The pace of change is quickening and this is partly through the influence that the unregulated internet has…. Some people find the pace of change unsettling…". But not him.
Complaints to the BSA regarding good taste and decency:-
Not upheld/declined to rule etc: 22
Not upheld/declined to rule etc: 36
Not upheld/declined to rule etc: 43
Not upheld/declined to rule etc: 51
Not upheld/declined to rule etc: 49
Lower standards have consequences: In Queensland (Aust) there is now 'more sex shops than supermarkets' and a "dramatic rise in sex crimes committed by young children". (p.15 'The Sunday Mail' 28th Sept. 08). As in New Zealand, these shops depend on a corrupt society to make money.