Category: Children and Wellbeing

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: “More Extreme, Deviant & Violent” Porn – Health Ministry

Media Release 30 March 2018
The Ministry of Health, in its submission to the Select Committee which is considering a 22,334-written petition calling on an expert panel to investigate the public health effects and societal harms of pornography, says that “the content of pornography has changed significantly over the last 20 years and has become more extreme, deviant and violent.”

It also acknowledges that “violence towards women and girls is depicted in 80% of online content. This has a variety of harmful impacts on children and young people’s sexual expectations, attitudes, and behaviour. European research showed an association between regular viewing of pornography and initiation of sexual violence.” However, the Ministry admits that it hasn’t undertaken any research in the area of pornography, but is supportive of the petition’s call.

The petition states: “That an expert panel be appointed to investigate the public health effects and societal harms of pornography to both children and adults, and to make policy recommendations to Parliament.” 

“The response to our petition has been phenomenal, but indicative of the community concern over this issue. Society is starting to catch up with the science on the harms of pornography. It’s time we examined it and took appropriate action – and that will be the role of an independent expert panel. There has been an important national conversation around consent and ‘rape culture’. At the same time, there is increasing consumption and availability of online pornography and sexual violence. It’s time we connected the dots,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ who is sponsoring the petition.

The MoH also acknowledges eminent Australian gender and violence research Associate Professor Michael Flood who recently said, “[I]f we’re genuinely concerned about sexual harassment and abuse, whether at work or on campus or in school, then we have to address pornography. Pornography is a key influence on sexist and sexually objectifying attitudes and sexually coercive behaviour.”

A nationwide poll in April 2017 found high levels of concern around the effects of online pornography and its link to sexual violence, and the easy access that young people have to offensive material. It also found significant support for action from government and internet providers in terms of filtering and Opt-Out provisions.

“The research also is discovering the highly addictive nature of pornography – termed by some as ‘the new drug’. These studies all highlight the extent to which porn is not a private matter to be ignored by the government. It is a public health crisis which needs to be confronted.”

“If we want to tackle sexual violence, we must first admit the role that pornography plays and the harm that it does to attitudes and actions,” says Mr McCoskrie.

Family First’s written submission to the Select Committee is on our website: www.porninquiry.nz They are due to appear before the Committee on April 11.

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Physical Restraint Rules Remove Common Sense & Safety

Media Release 26 March 2018
Family First NZ says that school staff are wasting hours of valuable time having to complete documentation on the physical restraint of disruptive and unruly students in primary schools. Official documents from the Ministry of Education show that more than 1,000 reports of physical restraint have had to be lodged by schools since new rules were introduced for schools in August 2017. 75% of the incidences occurred in primary schools with children as young as five. 85% of the incidences involved boys.

This also means that more than 5,000 forms or reports will have had to be completed by school staff.

“The Ministry suggests that the number of reported incidents is “a small percentage” but the real issue is whether teachers are ignoring or unable to deal with unruly and unacceptable behaviour in very young children because teachers are now no longer confident or unsure of their right to restrain students. This then places all students at risk. It seems ironic that as we are saying no to violence within families and our community, schools are expected to tolerate an unacceptable level of violence and unruly behaviour, Teachers also say that they are scared to even break up schoolyard fights or are standing back while a student trashes the classroom,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Ministry Guidelines argue that “physical restraint is a serious intervention” and that the “emotional and physical impact on the student being restrained” can be significant. They say that school staff should not use physical restraint in a number of situations including:

• to respond to behaviour that is disrupting the classroom but not putting anyone in danger of being hurt

• for refusal to comply with an adult’s request

• to stop a student who is trying to leave the classroom or school without permission

• to stop a student who is damaging or removing property, unless there is a risk to safety.

They also say that “if escalation occurs, move further away”.

For any acts of physical restraint on a student, five forms must be completed – an incident report, information for the Ministry, staff reflection form, debriefing form with the Principal, and a debriefing with the parents.

“Teachers are right to be concerned about the potential harms and hassles of handling unruly and violent students and the possible effect on their professional status. Common sense has been expelled from schools, and no amount of ‘guidelines’ and ‘professional development courses’ can make up for teachers being able to respond quickly and instinctively in the most effective way in often very stressful and exceptional circumstances. Parents also want assurance that their children will be kept safe from violent or unruly students,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Combined with the ‘chilling’ effect of the anti-smacking law, this is all having the adverse effect of parents and teachers becoming too afraid to administer any physical control or restraint of children. Children have received the message that adults can not touch them or even tell them what to do. This seriously undermines the authority of parents, teachers, and even the police themselves – hence the increasing violence and disrespect towards parents, teachers and police.”

“We are quickly creating an unsafe environment where children know their rights, but not their wrongs. Restoring authority will make our children happier and our communities and schools safer.”

“Student behaviour and bullying will continue to deteriorate for as long as we tell them that their rights are more important than their responsibilities, proper parental authority is undermined by politicians and subject to the rights of their children, and that there will be no consequences of any significance when they ‘cross the line’.”
ENDS

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Women Need To Know Risks of Abortion – Study

Media Release 23 March 2018
A research paper for health professionals which reviews international evidence to date about the relationship between abortion and the physical and mental health of women says that abortion is associated with a wide range of adverse physical and psychological outcomes, and it is essential that women are made fully aware of all the risks.

“Abortion and the Physical and Mental Health of Women – A review of the evidence for health professionals” is written by bioethicist Dr Gregory Pike, and summarises the considerable international research undertaken on the physical and psychological impact on women, and also on the circumstances surrounding the decision-making process. It concludes that while studies on abortion have sometimes yielded inconsistent results, there is a clear correlation between abortion and adverse psychological outcomes.

Other conclusions based on the research analysis include:

• Intimate partner violence (IPV) is strongly correlated with abortion, with some research showing a 6-fold increase of IPV in women undergoing abortion compared to those in antenatal care. Abortion has also been linked to international trafficking and slavery of women. Presentation for abortion may be an opportunity to address the risk of coercion and intimate partner violence.
• Ambivalence to abortion is common and is linked to some adverse post-abortion outcomes.
• The prevalence of foetal abnormalities has increased in many countries and women commonly report a lack of information provided to them about the child’s condition, and the options open to them. (an example was recently covered in the NZ media)
• The physical effects of abortion include an increased risk of premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies, and this appears to be related to surgical abortion but not medical abortion.
• Significant inconsistencies exist in research about a possible link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer, yet there is evidence showing that carrying a pregnancy to term is protective against breast cancer.

In one significant finding, the research suggests that medical abortions outstrip surgical ones by a factor of at least four when it comes to the overall incidence of complications. A Finnish study of almost 43,000 women found that “the incidence of adverse events was 4 times higher in medical versus surgical abortion (20% v 5.6%). Moreover, haemorrhage in medical versus surgical abortions was significantly higher at 15.6% compared with 2.1%, as was incomplete abortion (6.7% v 1.6%).”

“This is concerning given that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has recently told politicians that it would be safer for women having a medical abortion to take the medicine at home. In fact, the Scottish government guidance says a woman must have another adult with her and the pill must only be taken up to ten weeks gestation, indicating that it’s not a straightforward procedure,” says Marina Young, spokesperson for Family First NZ, which commissioned the research.

The research paper also includes NZ-based studies including the University of Otago study in 2008 which found that women who had an abortion faced a 30% increase in the risk of developing common mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. And a research paper entitled “Does abortion reduce the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy? A re-appraisal of the evidence” by Professor David Fergusson, John Horwood, and Joseph Boden which was published in the 2013 edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry concluded that the evidence shows that abortion was not associated with a reduction in rates of mental health problems, but was associated with increases in risks of anxiety, alcohol and drug misuse, and suicidal behavior. They state: “There is no available evidence to suggest that abortion has therapeutic effects in reducing the mental health risks of unwanted or unintended pregnancy. There is suggestive evidence that abortion may be associated with small to moderate increases in risks of some mental health problems.”

“New Zealanders want women to make an informed decision. In a poll of NZ’ers in 2011, the majority of New Zealanders (64%) said that women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives. And a 2016 survey asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: “Women who have abortions risk harming their mental health as a result of the abortion.” Overall, 46% agreed with the statement, 21% were unsure or didn’t say, and only 33% disagreed. Significantly, strongest agreement with the statement came from the younger 18-40 age bracket (50%),” says Mrs Young.

“We highly recommend this paper to all health professionals who believe that women should be fully informed of the choices they may make.”

READ THE FULL REPORT

ENDS

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: TV Host’s Comment Undermines Value Of Mothers

Media Release 19 March 2018
Family First NZ is rubbishing TV3 AM Show host Mark Richardson’s comments that motherhood should not be considered a job, labelling the comments as disrespectful and potentially harmful, and ignoring the research. 

“Mothers have been undervalued. Yet there is growing evidence of profound beneficial neurobiological effects a mother’s physical presence has on her young child that cannot be achieved by anyone else. It’s significant that a childcare worker is treated as having a “job” but a full-time mother isn’t,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. 

Family First released a report in 2012 “WHO CARES? Mothers, Daycare and Child Wellbeing in New Zealand” prepared by UK psychologist Dr Aric Sigman, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. Dr Sigman argues that the impression given is that mothers who do stay at home for the first few years of their child’s life confer no benefits or advantages on their child when compared to equivalent time spent in non-parental care.  

“Parental and non-parental care are presented as equal alternatives entailing nothing more than a discretionary lifestyle choice involving mere stylistic differences. In short, this means that the many mothers who have spent years at home with their children in the belief that this conferred significant benefits to them have wasted their time. Yet the uncomfortable but nagging question remains: which is generally better for a young child during weekdays – the biological mother or a paid carer at an institution? To suggest that motherhood is special is seen by some as in some way demeaning, even insulting, to women,” says Dr Sigman. 

“Why has motherhood not been viewed as an incomparable responsibility carried out by a gender with awe-inspiring qualities? If we are so concerned about sexism and being sensitive to women’s feelings about their choices, why must the negative feelings – the guilt – of some working mothers take precedence over supporting the feelings of stay-at-home mothers?” asks Dr Sigman. 

NZ’s Brainwave Trust which was formed as a response to new scientific evidence on the impact that experiences in the first 3 years have on the brain development of a child, says on its website, “The early attachment between parents and their baby creates a foundation for that child’s future relationships with others. Smiling, singing, touching and cuddling as part of attuned, responsive care is necessary to develop this part of the brain. Close, loving physical touch is crucially important. These things allow the child to develop the brain connections needed to feel empathy and care for others – an important prerequisite for healthy functioning as an adult.” 

“With respect, Mark Richardson needs to do a bit more homework,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Right To Silence Rules Hiding Abusers, Call For Review

Media Release 16 March 2018
Family First NZ is repeating its call for a review of ‘right to silence’ laws which is effectively hindering investigations into child abuse. Family First has previously made this plea as a result of the Coroner’s report into the death of 7-month-old Staranise Waru from Christchurch, and the deaths of the Kahui twins.

“The right of the parents and caregivers to refuse to answer questions during a police investigation meant that the truth surrounding the death of Waru and the Kahui twins was effectively withheld. That is now being repeated with the latest case of a four-month-old baby girl in Auckland,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Child abusers are able to hide behind their right to silence – and children are the ultimate victims.”

“Parents, caregivers, relatives and those in contact with a victim of serious child abuse should be held accountable until they fully disclose their involvement and demonstrate their innocence.”

“We now have victims of child abuse screaming for justice and nobody held to account.”

In 2011, the country’s leading authority on child protection questioned the right to silence for defendants in some child-abuse cases. Starship hospital’s director of child protection, Dr Patrick Kelly, told the inquest into the death of the Kahui twins that he was disappointed proposed legislation from the National Government did not include some limitations on the right to silence.

“The rights of victims to justice and the urgent need for offenders to be held accountable far outweighs the right to silence and other privileges that families may seek to use to mask their guilt or involvement.”

“The laws should be changed to reflect this priority.”
ENDS

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Police Right To Investigate Promotion & Enabling of Suicide

Media Release 15 March 2018
Family First NZ says police are absolutely correct to be investigating, shutting down and prosecuting the promotion of suicide in New Zealand, and especially the operations of Philip Nitschke.

“The intent of the police was correct when checking on supporters of Exit International. Nitschke promotes suicide, has left a trail of destruction, and is evidence of just how far some euthanasia advocates will take an assisted suicide law if it was ever introduced. Just last year, Nitschke was exposed for selling suicide kits disguised as equipment for home-brewing beer. No controls. Just a credit card required. Vulnerable people are being exploited by his agenda and the police need to protect NZ’ers from him and groups associated with him,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

The Medical Board of Australia has imposed 25 strict conditions on Nitschke who they rightly believe “presents a serious risk to public health and safety”. In 2014 Nitschke came under fire from two Australian suicide prevention organisations, Beyond Blue and the Black Dog Institute, after his involvement in the suicide of a physically healthy 45-year-old Australian man, Nigel Brayley. Complaints have also been made regarding the suicides of Erin Berg, a 39-year-old mother suffering from post-natal depression who died an agonizing death from euthanasia drugs; Lucas Taylor, a 26-year-old suffering from hidden depression; Gillian Clark, a 47-year-old who was undergoing medical tests; and Joe Waterman, a physically healthy 25-year-old, among others.

The 2015 Victorian state government inquiry into end-of-life choices found that young and physically healthy people were killing themselves using a drug recommended by euthanasia groups – the same drug being recommended in NZ. The majority of those suicides were young people who were physically healthy, but mentally ill.

A Wellington woman ended her life with Nembutal in 2008, after receiving advice on how to obtain it from Dr Nitschke. She was a life-member of EXIT and was suffering from depression but was physically fit and not suffering a terminal illness.

“Nitschke defends the right of someone to take their own life, even when fit and healthy. New Zealanders reject this destructive message and the police are right to be prosecuting and investigating groups in order to remove this risk to vulnerable NZ’ers,” says Mr McCoskrie.
ENDS

—

Source: Family First – Press Release/Statement:

Headline: Bail Laws Protect Families, Must Be Maintained

Media Release 6 March 2018
Family First NZ says that the current bail laws which were strengthened in 2013 protect families from repeat and high-risk offenders and are designed to prevent repeats of the Christie Marceau tragedy.

“Public safety should be the court’s primary consideration, and the burden of proof must be on those charged with the worst offences and with the highest risk of reoffending while on bail. The Coroner’s report emphasises the importance of information-sharing between agencies to ensure that the courts make the right decision which prioritises public safety and considers the needs and protection of victims,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“There were many reasons why the law was changed and should not be repealed or weakened by the current government. Natasha Hayden was slain by Tauranga man Michael Curran at McLaren Falls in 2005 while he was awaiting trial for the murder of 2-year-old Tauranga toddler Aaliyah Morrissey. 17-year-old Augustine Borrell was stabbed to death at a party in the Auckland suburb of Herne Bay in 2007 by Haiden Davis who was on bail for another violent crime. Vanessa Pickering was murdered by Malcolm Chaston while he was on bail. The man accused of Auckland teenager Christie Marceau was on bail at the time of the alleged murder. Last year Ramnitesh Avinash had been in court for threatening to kill his partner, Inayat Kawthar, and assault with a weapon. Police opposed bail, but the community magistrate let him go. Ten days later, his 24-year-old partner was dead, fatally stabbed by her boyfriend in South Auckland before he died by a railway track in the area.”

“Ministry of Justice figures released in 2012 revealed that 23 people were convicted of murders committed while free on bail over a five-year period, and a further 21 were convicted of “homicide-related” offences committed while on bail, including manslaughter, attempted murder and driving causing death. Over the same period, almost 70,000 offenders committed new crimes after being released on bail.”

“The number of serious crimes previously committed while on bail proved the urgent need for improving public safety, and to ensure that those accused of serious offences would find it more difficult to get bail,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“The simple fact is that crimes cannot be committed when a person is incarcerated. That is part of the reason why our crime rate has been dropping.”

“Bail is a privilege, not a right – and the rights of the public to protection from repeat and high-risk offenders should take precedence.”
ENDS

—