discrimination. religious freedom

Re-elected Labour government increasing threat to human rights and traditional family.

October 18, 2020 by Philip 1 Comment

Media Release 17 October 2020

Right to Life is disappointed that the electorate has re-elected Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Labour government for a further term of government. Right to Life believes that only those who are committed to protecting the lives of every person in the community from conception to natural death are worthy of sitting in our Parliament or of governing us. Right to Life believes that the Labour government of Jacinda Ardern has forfeited its right to govern us because of their failure to protect women and their precious unborn from the violence of abortion which is now promoted as no longer a crime but health care. They have also failed to protect the vulnerable in our community from euthanasia and assisted suicide with their overwhelming support for the End of Life Choice Act.

Right to Life warns the community that Western civilisation and its values are under attack by neoliberalism and post modernism. Following the government’s violation of human rights during its first term, we need to be alert to the re-energised agenda that will be pursued by the government this term, which will increasingly threaten the sanctity of life and the traditional family, the foundation of our nation.

This government, during its first term, presided over the government funded killing of more than 30,000 innocent and defenceless unborn children. It also passed the Abortion Legislation Act 2020 which denied the humanity of the unborn child and declared that it was no longer a crime to kill a defenceless unborn child. There were more than 25,000 written submissions to the Abortion Legislation select committee, with 90 per cent of these opposed to decriminalising abortion, the government ignored these submissions.

This government caucus also gave overwhelming support to the End of Life Choice Act, which would empower doctors to administer a lethal injection or assist in the suicide of vulnerable patients, as “health care”.

This government threatens free speech, with its promise to introduce legislation to prohibit hate speech. This could be used to prohibit churches from teaching that killing unborn children in abortion or killing the vulnerable in euthanasia is a violation of human rights and an offence to God.

The government fully supports the Private Members Bill of Louisa Wall M.P., to restrict the right of free speech and assembly within 150 metres of an abortion facility. This law would deny women seeking an abortion, their right to obtain help from those present.

This election is a sad day for our parliamentary democracy, as the Labour government now has an overwhelming majority that will allow it to legislate as it wishes. Will the news media serve our community by being an effective watchdog?

Ken Orr

Spokesperson,

Right to Life

Why is the Labour government opposed to the traditional family?

October 13, 2020 by Philip 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

Victorian court denies freedom to uphold Bible teaching

April 30, 2014 by Admin Leave a Comment

The following post is from a media release from FamilyVoice Australia on 23 April 2014

“Religious freedom is under threat in Victoria, now that a court ruling has denied a Christian-run camp its right to maintain biblical standards of conduct on its premises,” FamilyVoice state officer Peter Stevens said today.

Jesus taught that all forms of sexual intercourse outside marriage, (including homosexual activity) is evil Matthew 15:19

The Victorian Court of Appeal recently dismissed an Appeal from a VCAT decision in 2010 which ruled that Christian Youth Camps had discriminated against Cobaw, a group for same-sex attracted youth, in the provision of accommodation.

Lawyers for the organisation told the Court of Appeal Mr Rowe did not refuse the group because their members were homosexual, but because the group would promote a message that it is okay to have sex outside marriage.

The Christian group’s appeal was dimissed by a majority of 2:1, with Justice Robert Redlich dissenting.

Justice Redlich said that section 77 of the Equal Opportunity Act is an exemption available to a corporation and that CYC and its employee Mark Rowe, who refused the booking, were taking steps necessary to comply with their genuine religious beliefs that promotion of homosexuality was wrong.

In the original 2010 ruling, the Tribunal ruled that CYC’s biblical beliefs about marriage, sexual relationships or homosexuality are not doctrines of the Christian religion. “This is an extraordinary denial of the facts,” Pastor Stevens said.

[Read more…]