Right to Life New Zealand

Upholding the sanctity of Human life and Standing Up for the Vulnerable

The Government pushes forward with first step of controversial ‘hate speech’ laws

by 2 Comments

The following article is from the Family First Website. The Government’s Controversial “hate-speech” laws continue to be proposed by the Labour Government under the pretence of ‘the public good’. The full article can be viewed on their website by clicking here.

‘Hate-speech’ laws continue to be proposed by the Labour Government under the pretence of ‘the public good’. After all, who can disagree with the idea of banning ‘hate’? But beneath the shiny veneer of good intentions lies one of the most dangerous attempts at a law change our country has faced in recent history.

After years of debate and 19,000 submissions to a recent Ministry of Justice consultation on six changes proposed by the Government to expand hate speech laws, the Government has finally released its draft hate speech law – and in a major backdown, they have proposed just one change.

Let’s dig deeper into this agenda. You can also Download our Fact Sheet which explains all of this in more detail.

Controversial “hate-speech” laws continue to be proposed by the Labour Government under the pretence of ‘the public good’. After all, who can disagree with the idea of banning “hate”?

But beneath the shiny veneer of good intentions lies one of the most dangerous attempts at a law change our country has faced in recent history.

Nearly one in two unmarried pregnant women choose life for their baby!

by 1 Comment

Media Release 3 January 2023

Right to Life applauds unmarried women in New Zealand who choose life for their child and who reject abortion, they are heroes. Today we should also weep with our sisters, the wounded and victimised women who weep for their children torn from their womb by the state under the guise of health care.

 It takes heroic courage for a woman to resist pressure from Family Planning, from the father of the child and from family and friends to terminate the life of their child.

There were 58,749 live births in New Zealand for the year ending September 2022. There were 29,508 babies born to unmarried parents, this was the first year that the number of babies born to unmarried mothers, 50.2%, exceeded those born to married parents. In 1964 less than 10% of all live births were to unmarried mothers. A third of these babies, 7,506 were to parents not living together, these are solo mothers.

The number of unmarried women who had an abortion is not known, as this statistic is not collected by the Ministry of Health. It was previously collected by the Abortion Supervisory Committee and in its report for 1990 revealed that nearly  60% of women undergoing an abortion had never married, 7% were living in a de facto relation and 21% were married.

There were 13,257 abortions in 2021, it is estimated that 7,956 of these abortions were performed on unmarried women.

As there were 7,506 live births to unmarried mothers who were not living with the father of their child, it indicates that about 50% of the pregnant unmarried women heroically chose life for their child.

In New Zealand one child in four is living in a single parent home. The majority of these families are living in poverty. It is unjust for society to expect solo mothers to raise children alone without the support of a husband. These families deserve the love and support of the community.

The family of exclusively one man and one woman is the foundation of a stable society. The institution of marriage is there for the protection of women and children. It should be a matter of concern for the government and for the community that today there are more babies being born to non-married parents than to married parents.

The government does not support the traditional family of exclusively one man and one woman. The Attorney General argued in the Supreme Court in the appeal of Family First against the Charities Commission in 2022,

“Family First’s contention that its activities benefit all forms of families cannot be sustained on the evidence. He submits that Family First has not established that its principal purpose, advocacy on behalf of the traditional family, is of public benefit or is sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable.”

Right to Life believes that If the government fails to recognise the importance of the traditional family, they are in effect promoting solo motherhood.

It is unjust and socially irresponsible for the government to introduce Family Planning sexuality programmes in schools, which undermine marriage by promoting promiscuity and sex before marriage. The government should uphold the traditional family and introduce chastity based programmes in schools.

 

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

Right to Life New Zealand Inc.

Why is the Labour government opposed to the traditional family?

by Leave a Comment

Media Release 7 July 2022

The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on 28 June 2022, dismissed the appeal of Family First for the restoration of its charity status with the Charities Registration Board.

 Right to Life fully applauds and supports Family First for its defence of life and the traditional family. Family First is not deterred by this manifestly unjust decision and deserves the support of our whole community for its courageous defence of the family and our human rights. 

The appeal was opposed by the Attorney General on behalf of the government which supported the Charities Registration Board, that Family First was advocating traditional marriage of one man and one woman as the foundation of a healthy society. Counsel for the Charities Board submitted that “the Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.”

The government refuses to accept that traditional marriage was instituted by our Creator for the happiness, wellbeing of mankind and for the procreation of the human race.

The government should recognise that the family does not exist for society or the state but society and the state exist for the family. The duty of the State is to protect and promote traditional marriage and not to restrict it or suppress it.

It should be of great concern to all New Zealand families that the government is seeking to suppress the traditional family.  Right to Life believes that now that the government has achieved success in the Supreme Court, that we can expect an attack on the charitable status of churches and state integrated schools which teach that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman.

The traditional family is one of the 3 pillars of authority outside the state, along with the Church and civic organisations to defend human rights and democracy.

This case exposes and highlights the government’s rejection of the traditional family of exclusively one man and one woman as being of public benefit. The Attorney General argued that:-

  “Family First’s contention that its activities benefit all forms of families cannot be sustained on the evidence. He submits that Family First has not established that its principal purpose, advocacy on behalf of the traditional family, is of public benefit or is sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable.”

  Counsel for the Charities Board submitted that the, “Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.”

Right to Life requests that the government legislate to implement its commitment made in its election manifesto in 2017, “that Labour will ensure that community and voluntary organisations can engage in advocacy without fear of losing government contracts or their charitable status”. 

 

Ken Orr,

Spokesperson,

 Right to Life N.Z. Inc.

Pro-choice, just not that choice

by Leave a Comment

The following is a re-post by Dane Giraud, spokesperson for the the NZ Free Speech Union. We post it hear to raise awareness of the censorship of conservative viewpoints by not only our media but we would argue even bodies such as  our judicial organisations. Please take a few minutes to read and digest this important post.  Dane writes….

I’m a member of a liberal Jewish community. I grew up in South Auckland and have always sat on the Left – so my appreciation of Karl Marx is unlikely to be shared by National MP Simon O’Connor or Family First director Bob McCoskrie. But I am nevertheless seriously concerned about the censorship we have recently seen of their views.

 

When Christopher Luxon said, ‘One way or another, that post was coming down,’ in reference to the above post made by Simon O’Connor in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling, I got worried. Not because I agree with O’Connor. I don’t. But on account of the small but vocal minority of New Zealanders who refuse to tolerate any disagreement.

What’s so ironic is the people O’Connor was allegedly ‘distressing’ refer to themselves as pro-choice. And yet the backlash – including immense pressure on Luxon – suggests this choice doesn’t extend to the views people can hold on the topic.

It is worth remembering that plenty of New Zealanders would have shared O’Connor’s sentiments that day even though I (and maybe you) don’t. But they’ve now been told that their representatives will no longer be allowed to give voice to their concerns and that their own voices are considered beyond the pale. We often hear ‘thought leaders’ talk of a need to include more people in the democratic process. But the censorship we’re seeing risks alienating people from this very process which could have terrible consequences for us as a nation downstream. Obviously, Christopher Luxon can run his party any way he sees fit. I just hope his eyes are open to the potential costs to our ‘cohesion’, to use a popular term.

The silencing of O’Connor was almost a repeat of what we saw a few weeks ago when activists refused to accept that Bethlehem College could define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Solution? Shut down their speech. Even though thousands upon thousands of Kiwis have signed our public letter to support their right to speak, many still want to make it impossible for a more traditionalist perspective of marriage to be expressed.

I fully understand the offense archaic views can cause. But the contract we all enter into living together in a liberal and democratic society is that we will often disagree – profoundly – on moral and other issues. This shouldn’t be news to anybody. We still have to be able to live together peacefully. Free speech makes this possible. 

Interfaith gathering  

If you are going to go after foundational Christian positions, why not just be done with it and call for the banning of the bible? I am not always a fan of the representations of Jews in Christian theology, but my solution is to explain why and offer a counterview. Why? Because I want to bring people along with me not to throw up walls and supercharge resentment and more polarisation by silencing others (In fact, we created interfaith groups expressly to foster better understanding). Put simply: I understand the concept of tolerance. I think you probably do too, but it’s a message many are missing in our country. 

Advocacy considered unbalanced if they’re ideas we don’t like 

This theme continues: I was also concerned about the Supreme Court’s ruling against conservative values advocacy group ‘Family First’ – which feels like a politically motivated decision. One of the opinions was that their research lacked the balance required to further an educative purpose”. Does the NZ Drug Foundation balance its views by promoting all the counterarguments? This strikes me as a ruling that demands closer attention.

The silencing of traditional perspectives points to an irony in contemporary censorship. Our government wants to include religion as a protected characteristic in their proposed new hate speech laws yet the censorship we’ve seen against religious MPs and schools has been unashamedly discriminatory. But of course, censorship itself is a form of discrimination. It quite literally is a process in which the powerful decide who can and can’t have full participatory rights in society.

Defending free speech has nothing to do with agreeing with the speech

Our haters will say that this email proves that I must surely sympathize with both O’Connor and McCoskrie. But that shows an embarrassing ignorance of the principle of free speech. And we all know if these same haters saw their views suppressed, they would be the first to cry crisis. We all have subtle differences on the Council as to what is the core motivation for our advocacy so let me share with you mine: It is in my interest as a member of a minority group that we have better cohesion. But we do not aid cohesion by silencing groups we disagree with. If anything, this is the recipe for polarisation, cynicism towards power and potential unrest. A degree of maturity is needed here by leaders and New Zealanders alike. We must return and hold fast to a culture of tolerance. 

Remember that when you defend any voice – even the voices of those you may be bitterly opposed to – you are defending your own. We support free speech because any opinion that is silenced sets a precedent that may eventually endanger the expression of our views. Our values. 

Censoring a symbol is not victory you think it is

Another example of counter-productive activism this week comes from a new outfit named Humanity Matters NZ which is running a petition to ban displaying swastikas in NZ. This petition is clearly inspired by a similar ban in the state of Victoria. And appears just as nonsensical.

Free speech quote

As you’d probably imagine, my being a Jew and all, the image of the swastika hardly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling. And you certainly don’t have to be Jewish to be made uncomfortable by the symbol. Many Kiwis have relatives who bravely died defeating the scourge of the Third Reich. But the idea that a ban on this symbol will benefit society in any material way is just dim-witted.

Define display? Is the intent here to dismantle our war memorials and museums or will we make an exception in that case? Will history books that feature the symbol now need to be purged? What about films with actors playing Nazis? Will Hindu’s be prevented from using it in their ancient practices? Shielding society from this symbol would be impossible without numerous carve-outs, which would in turn make a mockery of any ban. And we have seen how far-Right groups quickly adapt to censorious laws with the Quinelle, for example: playing whack-a-mole with symbolism does nothing to counter the underlying hate. It only gives publicity for the haters.

On the petition’s website Humanity Matters NZ write “By banning this symbol, we send a clear message that symbols like the swastika have no place in our society.” But it does have a place in our society – as a historic symbol that represented a very real existential threat to us. According to the Humanity Matters NZ website the groups mission is to “provide curriculum-based materials for educators and students on human rights and case studies on genocides around the world.” But this group is proving they are completely happy to bury history while potentially creating a new allure to the symbol for dissenting groups in the process.

This petition is so ill-conceived it’s almost laughable. Almost. Steps like this are actually very serious.

Dane Giraud
Spokesperson
Free Speech Union

Thanks to Adam at the FSU for giving authorisation for this repost.

For more issues that the Free Speech Union addresses please visit their website

www.fsu.nz

https://freespeech.buzzsprout.com/

 

 

Why is the Labour government opposed to the traditional family?

by 2 Comments

Media Release 13 October 2020

The government should recognise that the family does not exist for society or the state, but society and the state exist for the family.

It should be of great concern to all New Zealand families that the government is seeking to suppress Family First’s outstanding advocacy for the traditional family and its opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

The Attorney General, (the Hon. David Parker, pictured), acting for the government, has appealed to the Supreme Court against the recent decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold its charity status withdrawn by the Charities Commission and upheld by the High Court in August 2018. 

The traditional family is one of the three pillars of authority outside the state, along with the Church and civic organisations, to defend human rights and democracy.

Right to Life believes that this appeal to the Supreme Court is not just about the charity status of Family First but about the government’s perception of the traditional family as being a threat to the government and to society. The government is opposed to the advocacy of Family First for the traditional family and its opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

In 2018 Right to Life requested the Prime Minister under the Official Information Act,”do you have policies that recognise that the promotion of marriage as  exclusively of one man and one woman as the source of the next generation and the foundation of a healthy society?” The reply from the office of the Prime Minister was to refuse the request as there were no such policies.

This case exposes and highlights the government’s rejection of the traditional family of exclusively one man and one woman as being of public benefit. The Attorney General’s submission to the Court of Appeal argued that:-

“Family First’s contention that its activities benefit all forms of families cannot be sustained on the evidence. He submits that Family First has not established that its principal purpose, advocacy on behalf of the traditional family, is of public benefit or is sufficiently analogous to any purpose previously accepted as charitable.”

Counsel for the Charities Board submitted that the, “Trust’s main purpose is to promote points of view about family life, the promotion of which is a political purpose because the points of view do not have a public benefit that is self-evident as a matter of law.”

Key Statements from the Court of Appeal Judgement, which is now being appealed by the Charities Board :-

Para 73: “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other similar instruments, affirm a right to family life. That provides considerable support for the proposition that Family First’s support of, education about, and advocacy for, the family and its related institution of marriage may, other things being equal, be charitable.”

Para 92: “[As] Paul Rishworth QC has observed: “Our political systems depend upon our deliberating as a community. Our understanding of the world comes by seeking information and transmitting it to others.”Para 109: “

An examination of this material, set in the context of advancement of education and research, shows Family First’s clear purpose of stimulating a public debate and participating in public discourse on important social issues relevant to families.”

Para 122: “Such research is valuable in promoting public knowledge about marriage and families and the many issues that affect the family. Public discussion and debate about such important issues is desirable to encourage the development of related policies and laws.”

Para 164/165: “We consider Family First’s engagement in the deliberations of the community on issues such as abortion, assisted death, anti-smacking laws, prostitution reform and censorship is properly characterised as part of its broader purpose of supporting marriage and family as being foundational to a strong and enduring society. Any attempt to label such engagement generally as cause advocacy of a political nature is not helpful.”

In fact, society “has a vested interest in supporting marriage as the surest basis for family life,” the statement affirms. It says, “Politicians of all parties should recognize and support marriage as a key building block of a stable society.” For, “marriage brings considerable and measurable benefits to individuals, children, family life and society.”

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Authorised by Paul Ives, 22C McBratneys Road, Christchurch

High Court Rejects Traditional Family as Public Benefit

by 3 Comments

Media Release 12 September 2018

Right to Life deplores the judgment of Justice Simon France in the High Court in Wellington on 31 August 2018. The judgment declared that the Charities Board was correct in cancelling the charity status of Family First, it is incoherent and unjust. Justice Simon France stated; “Its core purpose of promoting the traditional family unit cannot be shown to be in the public benefit in the charitable sense under the Act.”

 The High Court and the Charities Board are inferring that all forms of family are equal.  The traditional family of exclusively one woman and one man has been accepted by mankind since the beginning of time as the foundation stone of a healthy society. New Zealand was founded on the traditional family. Those who planned and organised the colonisation of New Zealand carefully selected traditional families to be the foundation of  this new nation.

The claim of the Charities Board and the High Court that the traditional family is not the foundation stone for a healthy society is outrageous and an insult to every traditional family in New Zealand. It is the traditional family that gives security to women and to children. In marriage a man makes a public commitment to protect the mother of his children and to provide for his wife and children. The Judge has failed to explain why the traditional family does not serve society nor has he presented another form of family which is now superior or even equal. Now is the time for the traditional families of New Zealand to protest at this attack on the family.

Those citizens who are concerned for the future of New Zealand should be aware that there is an organised international campaign by the population controllers at the United Nations and in the European Union to promote the LGBTQ agenda with the objective of destroying the traditional family.

Right to Life fully supports and applauds Family First’s intention to appeal this shocking judgment to the Court of Appeal and encourages every citizen to support this appeal on behalf of the traditional families of New Zealand.

Right to Life calls upon the Labour led government to uphold its policy included in the Labour Party Manifesto in 2017. “Labour will ensure that community and voluntary organisations can engage in advocacy without fear of losing government contracts or their charitable status.”

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Shock Poll: NZ’ers Want Stricter Limits on Abortion

by Leave a Comment

The following post is a media-release from Family First 21st January 2018

An independent poll of New Zealanders by Curia Market Research has found significant support for greater time limits on abortion, including from those who generally support abortion. There was surprisingly small support for the current Crimes Act time limit of 20 weeks, and overwhelming rejection of any extension to the limit. There was also strong support for legal safeguards.

“These results confirm that the Labour government has no mandate at all to liberalise the abortions laws. The vast majority of the population – including people who generally support abortion – show strong support and acceptance of the current legal framework and the presence of safeguards around issues such as coercion, licensing of providers, and informed consent,” says Marina Young, spokesperson for Family First NZ.

In the independent poll of 1,013 NZ’ers in December, just 9% support the current legal limit for an abortion of 20 weeks. Only 4% believe it should be later than 20 weeks (including up to birth), as proposed by pro-abortion group ALRANZ. 50% think the time limit should be shorter than the current 20 weeks, and a further 36% were unsure. Of those who did pick a time limit, 15 weeks was the median choice, according to Curia.

Significantly, 56% of women think the time limit should be less than the current 20 weeks. And incredibly, 53% of those who generally support abortion think the time limit should be less than the current 20 weeks – 29% of abortion supporters say 10 weeks or less.

Other results include:

  • 65% of respondents agree that society should work together to reduce the number of abortions (only 17% disagree). Of those who generally supportabortion, 63% agree with reducing the number of abortions (19% disagree). 74% of women agree (56% of men).
  • 86% support the current legal requirements of providers and premises having to be licensed (only 8% disagree). Of those who generally support abortion, 92% support these legal requirements. 95% of women agree (78% of men).
  • 90% oppose sex selective abortions (Only 4% support). Women are 94% opposed, and 91% of those who generally support abortion are opposed.
  • 76% support doctors being required to verify a woman seeking an abortion is not under any coercion from a 3rd party (8% opposed). Women are 83% in support (men 69%). Of those who generally support abortion, 84% support this legal requirement.
  • 52% say they generally support abortion and 29% oppose, 19% unsure. However, opposition to abortion exceeds support of abortion in areas of high deprivation (39% to 35%). NZ First voters are least supportive, Green voters most supportive.
  • 49% support being able to have an abortion just because a woman doesn’t want to be a mother (38% opposed, 13% unsure). Respondents in high areas of deprivation are evenly split on the issue. Green voters most supportive (73%), NZ First voters least supportive (38%).
  • Women are more pro-life then men on most of the issues canvassed.

Earlier surveys – also carried out by Curia Market Research – have found:

  • 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%).
  • A 2011 poll found that the majority of New Zealanders (64%) believe that women considering an abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives.
  • A 2010 poll found that 79% of respondents think parents should be notified if their daughter aged under 16 is seeking an abortion. And a 2011 poll of 600 teenagers (15-21) nationwide found that 59% of young respondents thought the parents should be told if their school-age daughter is considering getting an abortion, so long as it won’t put her in physical danger. 56% of youth respondents also said they believe an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born. Slightly more young women than young men agreed – 58% to 55%.

“Contrary to misrepresentation by pro-abortion groups, New Zealand women are either satisfied with the current regulation of abortion or want it made more restrictive. Women are not made criminals by the current legislative guidelines and protections. To claim otherwise is simply false scaremongering aimed at deceiving people into supporting the introduction of an extreme abortion law in New Zealand. The existing safeguards are there to protect women from unlicensed premises and coercion, and they are ones most New Zealanders support.”

“Our concern is that taking away the current safeguards will simply result in women being rushed or pressured into abortions that they don’t actually want, and which the current system helps to protect against. Coercion to have an abortion is a big issue for some women,” says Mrs Young.

The latest nationwide poll was carried out during December and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.

ENDS

 (Marina had an abortion in 1986 and now speaks about and promotes abortion healing through the Buttons Project (established in 2008) – which offers counselling, networking, and support programmes.)

Euthanasia Referendum- Just a Tool for Legitimising the Murder of the Vulnerable

by 2 Comments

Media Release Thursday 26th October 2017

Right to Life is opposed to the proposal of New Zealand First that Parliament give approval for a referendum to change the law to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. The issue of euthanasia is simply too complex to be put to a public vote. We believe that any change to the Crimes Act will ultimately lead to a “slippery slope” of assisted dying policies. Right to Life does not think  this is a matter that should be decided by individuals within the community.

We believe that the ground whereby doctors  can kill their patients or assist in their suicide would be constantly widened if a referendum led to a Euthanasia bill  being passed.  There are no possible safeguards that could ever ensure adequate protection for the vulnerable. There is ample evidence from overseas that once the law against killing is relaxed that the grounds for killing continue to expand. This is very clear looking at the evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium.

Right to Life is concerned that the question that is asked in this proposed referendum will be worded in such a way, as to achieve the objectives of those who are promoting euthanasia. We also are concerned that should  the result of the referendum support euthanasia, this will impose pressure on the conscience of those members of parliament who are opposed to it,  and who want to protect the community. [Read more…]

Defence of the Unborn Child and the Natural Family – The Real Issues We Face

by Leave a Comment

take my hand not my life Never before in the history of New Zealand has the natural family and the lives of our unborn faced such serious threats to their existence as they do today.

Right to Life requests that in the interest of the natural family and the protection of the lives of our precious unborn, that New Zealand First concludes a coalition agreement with the National government to govern New Zealand for the term of the next Parliament.

The result of the 2017 election is a repudiation of a culture of death. Jacinda Ardern pledged that on becoming Prime Minister, she would bring a bill to Parliament to decriminalise the murder of the unborn. If she got her way then it would no longer be a crime for an abortionist to kill an unborn child. Rather the unborn child would effectively be regarded as not being human. It would have no right to life whatsoever and would become a chattel,  the property of the mother. The killing of the unborn would become a ‘health service’.  Jacinda Ardern has also refused to acknowledge that the natural family consists exclusively of one woman and one man and that this is the source of the next generation and the very foundation upon which a healthy society is based.

The Labour and Green parties both support the decriminalisation of abortion. A coalition of Labour, Green and New Zealand First would empower Jacinda Ardern to have the government decriminalise abortion. We must not allow this to happen. Politicians who are not committed to protecting and promoting the right to life and the natural family, morally and ethically disqualify themselves from governing. [Read more…]

PPTA Pushes Exclusive & Confusing A-Gender

by 2 Comments

The following article is a re-post of a media release by Family First published on  29th May 2017

Family First NZ says that new guidelines being pushed by the PPTA in schools are not inclusive, they are exclusive, and most schools will continue with business as usual focusing on bullying and mental health issues experienced by all school students.

“Schools should be a ‘safe and affirming environment’ for all students and most schools are achieving this. The fact that the PPTA are pushing this “diverse sexualities and genders” agenda should concern all parents,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Schools are keen to deal with the bullying issue but they are taking a full school community approach. The PPTA guidelines ignore the far greater proportion of students who are bullied for the more common reasons of body image, racial background, disabilities, and academic success or failure. And of course the major prevalence of cyber-bullying.”

“Unfortunately, overweight students, students with acne or a speech impediment or a physical disability, or who are struggling academically, or students from a different culture don’t have a PPTA-sponsored ‘lobby group’. Their cause is not politically sexy enough.”

“But what is most ironic in all of this is that any student that doesn’t buy in to the group-think that is expected and dictated, even if it doesn’t affect the way they relate with other students, will immediately be bullied themselves with terms such as ‘homophobic’, ‘transphobic’, and ‘bigoted.’ Getting rid of all bullying is obviously not the key message of these groups,” says Mr McCoskrie.

GENDER CONFUSION [Read more…]

This is the website of Right to Life NZ Inc.
%d bloggers like this: