Yet that's exactly what's likely to happen.

Justice Minister Kiri Allan says she will be making announcements on hate speech by the end of this year.

"I guarantee that I'll be introducing a law that I intend to have concluded and put into law by the next election."

What the law will entail remains to be seen.

Finlayson has some words of warning about the possibility of such legislation being passed.

"I am not confident the authorities would take a strong stand to prosecute only the most serious and obvious cases. They would probably kick for touch and leave it to the courts to decide."

He suggests the most effective way of rebutting positions you disagree with is to master the arguments of your opponents and engage in a robust and civil debate.

"May the best person win the argument," he says. "It is contrary to fundamental principles of freedom of expression and to a liberal democracy to have a law that could stop the full and frank exchange of views."

Bob McCoskrie of Family First is also concerned about the possibility of hate speech legislation being passed.

It's not something to be taken lightly, he indicates.

Rather, he says it's vital that families and faith communities understand what is really at stake with these proposals.

"Make no mistake - political activists and special interest groups will miss the important distinction between hate speech, and merely speech they hate, and end up using such laws as tools of political intimidation to punish opponents and shut down debate in the marketplace of ideas," McCoskrie says.

Freelance blogger and journalist Karl du Fresne is also concerned about the prospect of hate speech legislation. He cites advice from Jacob Mchangama, a Danish lawyer, human rights advocate and author who spoke at the Free Speech Union conference in Auckland last Saturday.

"One of his key points was that historically, free speech has been a vital tool for the oppressed," du Fresne reports.

However, du Fresne says he's disappointed that there were so few journalists at the conference.

One, the editor of a high-profile national publication, was there to observe rather than report, he says.

A freelancer, Yvonne van Dongen, told the conference about the extraordinary obstacles, excuses and deceptions she encountered despite her well-established credentials when she tried to get an article published about the free speech debate.

"No one who heard van Dongen's account of her travails ... could delude themselves that the mainstream media can be regarded as allies in the campaign for free speech," du Fresne says.

This perception was reinforced by the fact that although Jacob Mchangama was interviewed on RNZ by Kim Hill, not a word appeared in the mainstream media about the conference.

Source

• YouTube
• NZ Herald
• NZ Herald
• Blogspot

In a decision released on Thursday morning, the Court of Appeal set aside a Charities Registration Board decision in 2017 to deregister Family First as a charity.

"This decision is a win for the freedom of speech and belief in New Zealand," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First New Zealand.

"The attempt by the Charities Board to deregister Family First would have been a watershed, not just for Family First, but for the whole country," McCoskrie said.

"Family First appealed this decision because of the threat it placed on us and other charities and our collective freedom to speak on behalf of our supporters in a civil society," he said.

"An overly restrictive or narrow view of what is in the public benefit is likely to be of concern to all charities, many of which have a certain emphasis or point of view."

During the appeal, Family First New Zealand's lawyer, Peter McKenzie QC, said the organisation had a "purpose of advancing education or a purpose" which was for the public benefit.

"Family First's activities directed towards promoting life are closely related to the welfare of the family and should be understood as being merely ancillary to its charitable purpose of promoting the family," McKenzie said.

The organisation's activities "serve to strengthen family life, encourage stability and promote values in society, arguing all purposes are of benefit to the community and should be regarded as charitable by analogy to the mental and moral improvement cases."

Through a lawyer, the Attorney-General argued Family First had not established its principal purpose - advocacy on behalf of the "traditional family" was a public benefit or "sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable."

Source

• scoop.co.nz
• rnz.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• Image: stuff.co.nz

Family First is appealing the decision and it will be heard in the High Court at Wellington early next year.

The group was advised in 2013 the Charities Commission intended to deregister the charity, citing Family First's traditional view of marriage being one man and one woman as one of the reasons.

"Family First gained approval as a charity eight years ago, has also passed two ‘audits' - one as recently as 2010 - and have made no change to the nature of our operations," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

"It appears that only the opinion of the Commission has changed," he said.

The group had hoped the issue would be resolved after a Supreme Court ruling in favour of Greenpeace in August.

The court ruled that Charities Act didn't limit advocacy from a charity unless it was no more than ancillary to its charitable purpose, and also found that a political purpose could also be a charitable one.

Charities Services is arguing the issue is about public benefit.

The Board's position is that Family First's main purpose is to promote particular points of view about family life.

The say that under the Act promotion of a controversial point of view is a political purpose.

It says that Family First does not advance religion or education, nor promote a benefit to all New Zealanders as determined by the Act.

"When a group who promotes the natural family as a fundamental social unit is deemed of 'no public benefit', you know a country is in deep trouble," say McCoskrie.

Source

• 3news
• charities.govt.nz
• Family First
• Image: Screenshot 3news

The Charities Registration Board had sought to deregister Family First as a charity, in the wake of the recent same-sex marriage debate.

Family First appealed to the High Court, but a hearing has been on hold until a decision on the Greenpeace case.

Family First NZ director Bob McCoskrie said part of the problem has been the subjective interpretation of the definition of a charity.

"But many groups involved in public issues will have a political involvement when politicians are changing laws and introducing policy that affects the supporters and focus of the charity concerned.

"It is right that charities should be able to speak in to the debates."

Family First has instructed their lawyers to immediately apply to the Charities Board to drop the deregistration action against Family First NZ, or to bring the hearing forward so the matter can be resolved immediately.

Continue reading

Street's bill allows any adult suffering from a condition likely to cause their death within 12 months to request medical assistance to die.

"If it's the same bill, I'll oppose it because I think the way that bill was structured is not good law," he said.

Key told told Family First director Bob McCoskrie in a public interview at a forum in Auckland on Friday that euthanasia would be "a legitimate thing" to speed up death for a terminally ill patient who was in pain.

McCoskrie also interviewed the leaders of NZ First and the Conservative parties - Winston Peters and Colin Craig - on their family-based policies as well as their personal principles and values which drive their desire to be involved in politics.

Labour leader David Cunliffe declined invitations to attend.

More than 200 delegates representing more than 70 family-focused organisations and groups attended the eighth annual NZ Forum on the Family, hosted by Family First NZ.

Speakers included Dr David Richmond (euthanasia) and Maggie Hamilton (sexualisation of children) and the topics of the anti-smacking law, redefinition of marriage, and abortion will also be covered.

There there was a screening of the premiere of the new documentary "Mum on a Mission" which shows the harm being done to good families by the anti-smacking law.

Source

• New Zealand Herald
• Family First
• Image: arntrnassets.mediaspanonline.com

Mr McCoskrie, the Family First national director, has not renewed his licence as a celebrant because he rejects the state definition of marriage, he announced on his blog. continue reading

The report states that international evidence shows that once assisted suicide or euthanasia are legalised, the criteria morph to include more and more people. This is as true in the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, as it is in Oregon and Washington State, where assisted suicide was legalised in 1997 and 2009, respectively.

Street, who has withdrawn her euthanasia bill until after next year's election, says people need to have the choice as to when they end their lives and she says the report is misleading and statistically wrong.

She says undoubtedly there are people who would not have thought about using legalised euthanasia before because it was not a legal option for them.

Last week, Bob McCoskrie from Family First told TNVZ's Breakfast that to allow Street's bill would "open up a Pandora's Box for elder abuse".

New Zealand should adopt the same precautionary approach to assisted suicide as it did to the death penalty which said one life lost is one too many, McCoskrie said.

Source

• TVNZ
• Image: Family First

District health board portfolio manager Jenny James said the teenage birth, termination of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates are higher than many other parts of the country.

Ways to combat these alarming statistics as set out in the strategy are providing the morning after pill for free at pharmacies, reducing the costs of contraception at general practices and encouraging and educating youth about healthy sexuality.

Source

• Stuff.co.nz
• Scoop
• Image: UPI.com

To support his contention McCoskrie sites the following facts:

• Canada: A court has ruled that marriage officials must marry homosexuals.
• USA: The army is threatening to court-martial Chaplains for ‘religious, conscience' objection to homosexuality. A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows ‘some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals. A proposed Kansas law would force churches to host same-sex ‘weddings,' receptions.
• UK: A Christian marriage conference was banned for their opposition to gay marriage. A Tory MP has called for churches to be banned from holding marriages if they refuse gay couples.
• The Netherlands: MPs voted for a change in the law to prevent civil servants refusing to conduct gay marriages.
• Sweden: Anyone challenging the homosexualist agenda in public in Sweden can be sent to prison, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that this does not constitute any violation of rights.
• Wales is moving against Catholic schools that are organizing students to protest a new government plan to back gay marriage in that country

Labour's MP for Mangere Su'a William Sio says he will be voting against the The definition of Marriage bill because there is widespread opposition within his electorate which has the highest population of Pacific Islanders in New Zealand, making up 58.8 per cent of voters.

Some ministers in Pacific churches were preaching against the bill and against Labour.

"This issue cuts deep into fundamental beliefs," he told Radio New Zealand. "It will divide the community."

"I feel somewhat betrayed by raising issues such as this when there are more prominent, more weightier issues such as jobs and income and putting food on the table and paying for the bills."

An online petition opposing the legalisation of same-sex marriage has been signed by nearly 20,000 people in its first week.

Source

• Morning Report 8 August
• Scoop
• Stuff.co.nz
• New Zealand Herald
• Image: Google Images

"Despite groups like Family Planning and Rainbow Youth being challenged by US psychiatrist Dr Miriam Grossman to a debate last week to defend their websites and pamphlets targeted at young people, they ran for cover. They also appeared to take down one of the offending websites during Dr Grossman's visit," says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First is especially concerned about websites such as curious.org.nz, theword.org.nz, getiton.co.nz and a number of Family Planning pamphlets.

Continue reading

Family First NZ is calling for the National, Labour and Green parties to state where they stand on the issue of redefining marriage to allow polygamy and polyamory.

"If the definition of marriage was extended to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, it could then be argued that we are discriminating against those seeking polygamous, polyamorous, or adult incestuous unions - if all that matters is love and commitment," says Family First's Bob McCroskrie.

"If we are going to have a debate about same-sex marriage and liberalising adoption laws, it is essential that the politicians acknowledge just how far this is going to go, and what relationships will continue to be discriminated against," he says.

Former Labour party Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson, in a speech to Victoria University first year Social and Public Policy students in 2008 said "We must cater for the diversity we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on. That's where we're going with social policy."

Source

• Voxy.co.nz
• Image: AsiaNetNews

In the week before Easter a member's bill which aims to extend paid parental leave in New Zealand from 14 to 26 weeks came up in the ballot.

It is being proposed by Labour's Sue Moroney, and with Peter Dunne's vote there would be enough support in Parliament for it to to be given a first reading.

However Bill English has announced that the Government will make rare use of its power of veto to stop the passing of any legislation that extends the period of paid parental leave. The Prime Minister, John Key, who is in Indonesia, subsequently said the National Party may consider extending paid parental leave at some time in the future.

"Successive Governments have undervalued mothers - and it continues with this decision.

"In reality, this policy would represent about 0.2% of the total Government spending, yet research shows that the role of mothers and the early bonding between mums and babies is vital for healthy child development."

The Families Commission has reversed its earlier support for a full year of paid parental leave, saying the country can probably no longer afford it.

Most bills are government bills. However, members who are not Ministers can introduce their own bills, which are called members' bills.

The House has limited the number of members' bills that can be introduced. Bills are selected by ballot.

When a ballot is to take place, members are notified of the number of new members' bills that can be introduced and are invited to enter bills in the ballot. They have until 10.00 am on the day of the ballot to notify the Clerk of their intention to enter.

Under Parliament's rules, the Government can veto a bill if it is deemed to have more than a minor impact on government finances.

Source

• TVNZ -Family First
• New Zealand Herald - Bill English
• New Zealand Herald -Families Commission
• TVNZ - John Key
• Image: TV3