Kiwiblog

I’m used to Family First complaining about all my favourite films, shows and TV shows. The intensity of their complaints about a show tends to be an excellent indicator of how much I will enjoy it.

But now they have complained about a church billboard!!

Family First NZ labelled the billboard to be put up by St Matthew-in-the-City Church as insensitive and objectionable to many people. The billboard ..was intended to challenge stereotypes about the way that Jesus was conceived and get people talking about the Christmas story, the church said. Archdeacon Glynn Cardy said it had already generated plenty of discussion in its conception phase.

But Family First national director Bob McCoskrie describes the church’s plan as irresponsible. “The church can have its debate on the virgin birth and its spiritual significance inside the church building, but to confront children and families with the concept as a street billboard is completely irresponsible and unnecessary,” he said.

The billboard is funny and harmless in my opinion.

Photo from Stuff.

Now if the billboard showed Joseph ravishing Mary, then I think there could be grounds for complaint, but I think it us rather cute.

And all things considered, you do have to wonder how it was for Joseph. I mean if God gets your wife pregnant, that is going to lead to performance anxiety.

I attended most of the Forum on the Family Conference on Friday, in Auckland, as I was speaking in the afternoon on blogging and social media.

A few amusing anecdotes from the conference. Chatting to an MP at morning tea with Madeleine Flannagan, who introduced herself as the author of the No 1 Christian Blog in New Zealand. I quipped that must make me the author of the No 1 hedonistic blog

There were speeches from both the Children’s Commissioner, and one of the Families Commissioners. Both were well received – better so than a year ago I suspect!

The afternoon session I found the most interesting as you had Phil Goff speaking, then another speaker, and then John Key. It was the first time I had seen Goff and Key speak in the same place.

I have to say I think Phil Goff spoke very well. It was not the most naturally friendly audience, and he generally handled himself skilfully. I’d partly forgotten how competent he is, due to a couple of errors of judgement since becoming Opposition Leader. He was a very safe pair of hands as Foreign and Trade Minister, and was also a pretty good Minister in the 1980s.

In fact the thought that came to mind, watching him, was that if he does become Prime Minister one day (which I think is unlikely) he will be a fairly competent one. I don’t mean I’ll at all like his policies, but he would be up to the job (something Lange sadly was not).

Goff handled the numerous questions on the anti-smacking law quite well, and also got quite ballsy with a couple of questions. He said he wished people would get as worked up about child abuse as they do about how to spell Wanganui. But most ballsy was in response to a request to have an independent appeal board against CYFS decisions. Goff said CYFS, while not perfect, is not the problem in New Zealand. It is the families who abuse and kill their kids, or allow it to happen.

So overall a good performance from Goff, and he gets kudos for accepting the invite. But, and there is always a but, the rating would be even higher if he had not been followed by John Key.

While Goff delivered a prepared speech well, Key spoke pretty much off the cuff and managed to engage the audience very effectively. And he got even more vigorous questioning over the anti-smacking law, but really interacted with the questioners. He gave examples, didn’t use sound bites, and I thought really connected. That is not to say people agreed with his answers, but it was a impressive performance. The example he gave was captured by the Herald:

Responding to another question from Mary Paki of Otara, he quoted a school principal in his electorate who told the parents of a Samoan boy in his school report that the boy needed to behave better.

He said the boy’s father went to the principal’s office the next morning and told her: “You don’t tell me how to discipline my child.”

To reinforce the point, the father brought the boy back later and asked him to lift his shirt to show “welt marks and blood running down the kid’s back”.

“That has got absolutely nothing to do with section 59 [the parental discipline law] except to say that we have to send a message through some communities that actually there is a big, big difference between a light smack and violence,” Mr Key said.

“That is why the Maori Party got on the phone [after the referendum] and begged me not to change the law.”

I’m not a fan of the law, and support the Boscawen Bill. But I’ve been waiting a couple of years for someone to make the argument that Key did – that some people or communities do not know the difference between an acceptable light smack and violence. This is one of the few arguments for the Section 59 repeal that I think had merit. It had to be balanced against the greater uncertainty it would give good parents under the law.

Ironically though that argument worked best for Bradford’s original bill – to simply repeal Section 59. That would have had the virtue of simplicity and would have meant a clear message could be sent. But the version of the law that got passed is far from simple. It in fact still allows an undefined level of reasonable force in numerous circumstances.

A couple of other people I spoke to said much the same as what I thought. They were impressed with Goff’s speech, but then were slightly less impressed after Key’s speech.

I’ve seen Key speak a few times now, and then do Q&A. He has a rare ability to really engage with the questioner, and basically comes over as someone who talks with you, not at you.

My own presentation seemed to go down well. In a fit of good timing, I was able to talk about the ACORN scandal in the US as a great example of how the Internet has empowered individuals to make a difference. 20 year old Hannah Giles, and one other, managed to basically destroy ACORN by capturing on video the widespread condoning of illegal activities such as under-age prostitution.

The Washington Times editorial made a good point:

Do you think your tax dollars should be used to help those who want to open a house of prostitution and illegally bring underage girls into the United States as “sex workers”? As you may have seen on television over the last few days, the taxpayer-funded ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has been doing just that.

Who exposed this latest bit of corruption at ACORN? — The FBI? The local police? A congressional investigating committee? The mainstream media? No, no, no, no. It was a 20-year-old-girl named Hannah Giles and a 25-year-old law student and investigative journalist named James O’Keefe.

The results of their expose has been ACORN has been dumped by the Census Bureau and the Senate voted 83-7 to stop funding them and the House voted 345-75 to do the same.

One of the nasty clauses of the Electoral Finance Act is it requires home or residential addresses to be used in all authorisatiion statements. There may be some merit in this for material put out by individuals, but for parties and organisations their registered office is all that should be needed – as was the case in the past.

Over the weekend four women stuck 1,000 (plastic( knives into the Bob McCoskrie’s lawn. They also placed an (ironically) anonymous note on his front door.

This is thuggish intimidatory behaviour. I have condemned mens rights groups for their antics outside the homes of Judges and lawyers, and this is even worse. It is clearly designed to intimidate.

It is possible the people responsible could have found Bob’s address even if he was not forced to have it on election material for Family First. But that is not the point – there is a difference between being in the White Pages and having to have your home address plastered on pamphlets, websites and billboards. I know of several women who have refused to be financial agents because they don’t want their home address published so widely.

Just another reason to vote for parties that will repeal the Electoral Finance Act.

Family First has rated every party leader for their “family friendliness” as they see it. This is a great idea, as those who agree with Family First’s values can use it as a positive guide, and those who disagree can use it as a negative guide. More lobby groups should do this sort of stuff.

The overall ratings (in order) for each Leader is:

1. Winston Peters 77%
2. Peter Dunne 69%
3. Pita Sharples 57%
4. Tariana Turia 54%
5. John Key 54%
6. Jim Anderton 38%
7. Rodney Hide 31%
8. Jeanette Fitzsimons 15%
9. Helen Clark 8%

Winston is the poster boy for social conservatism which is why it is so hilarious that so many on the left are doing everything possible to defend him.

There were 13 issues or votes they judged the Leaders on. I list them below, along with how I would have voted on it if I was an MP.

1. Prostitution Bill- DPF support – 0
2. Civil Unions – DPF support – 0
3. Relationships Bill – DPF support – 0
4. Parental Notification for under 16 abortions – DPF support – 1 (I support notification, not approval)
5. Euthanasia – DPF support – 0
6. Care of Children – DPF oppose – 1
7. Marriage Amendment (define as man/woman only) – DPF oppose – 0
8. Anti-Smacking – DPF oppose – 1
9. Easter Trading – DPF support – 0
10. Easter Sunday Trading – DPF support – 0
11. Drinking Age to 20 – DPF oppose – 0
12. Street Prostitution (Manukau) – DPF oppose – 0
13. Electoral Finance – DPF oppose – 1

So if I was a party leader I would be scored 4/13 or 31% – the same as Rodney Hide.

Steve Crow has won in court, but really he was going to be a winner regardless of the court ruling.

The publicity given to Mr Crow’s porn empire by Family First, Auckland City Council and others has been invaluable. He literally could not pay enough for all the free publicity. Rather than try and get the boobs on bikes parade banned, they should demand a share of the profits from his sex expo.

Why does Crow do boobs on bikes? To publicise his sex expo. He loses money on the actual parade – it is free. He doesn;t give a damn about whether or not the parade actually happens – he just wants the publicity about it.

He is secretly parying that Cathy Casey and co do lie down on the road to try and block it. It would be a god send for him. Guarantee a better TV story.

Mr Crow is a very smart man.

Also a very smart man, is public law specialist Dean Knight. Dean blogged last week that there was almost no chance of the Council being able to block the parade under the Bill of Rights. Dean concluded:

I am very confident in saying that, to the extent that the bylaw requires citizens to seek prior approval from a state body for a protest in a public place, it is patently inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and other fundamental common law rights, and is therefore unreasonable and invalid. There was, rightly, a public outcry a few years ago when Wellington City attempted to do this; it backed down. Also, it’s the very thing that many folk are pointing the stick at the Chinese government at the moment with the Olympics in Beijing. The requirement of prior approval is outrageous, particularly in the light of the restriction of protests and so forth.

He goes onto say:

It gets a little more complicated when one deals with other expressive activities. The reality is that we grade the nature of the expression and place differing degrees of importance on different types of speech. Political protest at the top. Speech lacking in intrinsic value at the bottom, arguably things like pornography etc. Commercial-related speech somewhere in the middle. That’s a wee bit controversial but probably accurate. In this case, we might see the full range of expression. Principally, the parade is related to a commercial activity. But it’s also got a pornographic titillation element – something slightly gratuitous. And, given the previous controversy and dealings, it’s also probably capable of being regarded as a protest or similar political assembly.

His colleague Steven Price then details a conversation he had with Dean on the legal issues:

Steven: You know what? I think it might depend on the amount of jiggle.

Dean: I think that’s right.

Steven: If there’s more jiggle, then it looks more sexualised – so arguably more lewd and offensive. Then controlling the parade fits better with the purposes of the Local Government Act, and the offences of offensive behaviour and indecent exposure. You’ve got less wiggle room for an argument based on the significance of the speech. More jiggle – less wiggle.

Dean: No, I disagree. If there’s more jiggling, there’s more of a political component to the protest. It is deliberately provocative. It underscores the parade’s message being more open about sexuality. It emphasises that the protest is defying convention, and the council’s attempts to scotch it. There’s less reason to protect an unjiggly naked protest, because the nakedness is less central to the protesters’ purpose. Jiggling provides better grounds for a defence for boobs on bikes. More jiggle – more wiggle.

Now’s that a legal conversation you don’t get to have very often!

Finally Steven notes:

Such is the stuff of academic discourse. Though it’s fair to say that Dean doesn’t normally evince this degree of interest in women’s breasts.

I burst out laughing when reading that. Those who know Dean probably did likewise. Others should be able to work it out!

As it so happens, I will be in Auckland tomorrow. Despite what some might think, I won’t be there for the Parade – for two reasons. Firstly the plastic fantastics that were on display last year look pretty awful from what I saw in the photos – you can’t beat natural. Secondly I actually think partially covered up is far far more sexy.

A wide range of reactions to National’s Benefits Policy. Taking them in no particular order.

Bll Ralston displys his outraged liberal roots and agrees with Helen Clark that it is beating up on single parents:

Frankly, less than 4000 adhering to the government breast on a more or less permanent basis is extremely few. In an effort to eradicate these last few bludgers, as it sees them, National will spend many millions of dollars in bureaucratic terms policing its new “back to work” system, counselling the DPB recipients and ensuring they really are making a buck for themselves.

Colin Espiner blogged yesterday and calls it Don-lite – watered down from Don Brash, but still different from Labour. He concludes:

There will be the usual objections from beneficiary advocates but National’s welfare policy won’t lose it any votes and may even pick up a few. It will be interesting to see how Labour responds. My pick is it won’t have too much to say.

Simon Collins has a useful look at the party differences:

It [Labour] believes the welfare state exists to empower those who would be powerless without it. For sole parents, the domestic purposes benefit gives them the power to leave unhappy or abusive relationships, and to balance paid work and unpaid parenting in the ratio that suits them and their children.

In contrast National, as John Key put it yesterday, believes in “a genuine safety net in times of need”. It thinks people should be moved on as quickly as possible.

I don’t think National in beliefs or policy encourages people to stay in abusive relationships. The DPB still exists. The difference is, having once moved out, whether or not one is forced to seek work at some stage, or can you stay on it for a decade without ever seeking a part-time job? But Collins is right the views are seen as “empowerment” vs “safety net”.

As his [Key's] policy pointed out, New Zealand’s refusal to work-test sole parents is now out of line with all Western countries except Australia, Britain and Ireland, all of which have signalled moves to start work-testing.

Yes, as with the 90 day trial period policy, this is standard practice in the developed world.

Collins also has quotes from various advocacy groups:

Family First director Bob McCoskrie, an invited guest at the policy launch, said making parents work part-time made sense, but only if implemented with discretion.

“We’d want to make sure that the work requirements are within school hours and not within the school holidays. Otherwise we are going to have a lot of unsupervised kids.”

Case Managers will need some discretion.

Another guest, Mercy Mission founder Barbara Stone, said she agreed with the work requirement “as long as it’s in school time and there is someone at home for the children for the rest of the time”. She said it was hard to get jobs for sole parents, who often had low self-esteem.

The focus should be on work during school hours only. But a part-time initial job may boost the self-esteem and confidence so that a full or near full-time job is easier to obtain once the kid or kids are older. Having a total break from the workforce for 10 years makes it much harder.

Housing Lobby spokeswoman Sue Henry said she was upset that John Key had “regurgitated” the work requirement policy that National implemented in the 1990s. “Quite frankly, latch-key kids and youth gangs and transience are a direct byproduct of taking the stick to beneficiary families [in the 1990s],” she said.

Yes there were no gangs before the 1990s. What a sensible contribution.

But Parenting Council chairwoman Lesley Max said the requirement for sole parents to work 15 hours a week was “consistent with the norm that exists across society as a whole”.

And who would argue with Lesley?

John Armstrong looks at the policy also:

Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue – a much paler blue in the case of National’s bits-and-pieces patchwork welfare policy.

Heh that could apply to many National policies!

The latest policy is archetypal John Key. It promises things Labour would happily do itself – such as making the annual inflation-related adjustment of benefit rates a legal obligation on governments, rather than just convention.

Yet in forcing part-time work obligations on some sickness beneficiaries the policy has enough to be identifiably National in origin. But not so much that it frightens centre-ground voters.

Labour and the Greens ritually slammed the policy as an attack on beneficiaries. Some in National’s ranks must think “if only”.

As I said, a sensible combination of carrot and stick.

The Herald editorial is reasonably negative on the policy:

It [solo mothers breeding to get the DPB] is probably as much a myth as the Labour Party’s idea of the average employer. That is to say, there are instances of benefit abuse just as there are rogue employers, but to treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work would be as foolish as legislating labour arrangements for all. Nevertheless, that is what National proposes to do with sole parents, invalids and sickness beneficiaries.

It is an interesting analogy, but somewhat flawed. Not all sole parents, invalids or sickness beneficiaries are being work tested. Only those DPB recipients whose children are aged over six, and only that small minority of invalids or sickness beneficiaries who have been medically assessed as capable of part-time work. The editorial concedes this later down, so the rhetoric of “treat the whole beneficiary class as though they are avoiding paid work” is somewhat hyperbolic.

For sickness beneficiaries the policy seems fair enough. As the economy has strengthened and the unemployed have faced more stringent job-seeking requirements, the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits have risen suspiciously high. They have needed only a doctor’s note, and even if the doctor assesses them to be capable of part-time work, they have been under no obligation to seek it. National intends to change that.

Some praise amongst the grumpiness.

But there will be cases where the time and cost of taking a low-paid job put added stress on a sole-parent family for little if any financial gain. It is doubtful that society gains from that stress, or that it is worth the trouble the ministry might take to enforce it.

Single mothers with good earning capacity are normally anxious to return to paid work as soon as child care allows. National’s efforts will be felt mainly by those with few skills and poor earning capacity and, frankly, Mr Key ought to have more important things to do. This policy does more to stroke the shibboleths of party supporters than meet any pressing social need. He should return to topics that count.

The policy is pretty standard in the developed world. And having an extra 30,000 or so people in the workforce will help close the gap with Australia.

From the comments section in the previous post:

I’ve never played Grand Theft Auto. But the more I read how Gordon Copeland and Family First want to ban it, the more I really really want to get a copy. What I love about the releases attacking a game, film or book is how incredibly useful and detailed they are for people:

Grand Theft Auto IV is scheduled for release this week. It follows on from previous Grand Theft Auto games which included constant graphic violence and sexual situations. Players could re-enact having sex with a prostitute, beating her bloody, taking her money and running her over with a car and shooting at police officers.

Rockstar Games which produces the game says the company is going even further in its pursuit of realism with this latest game in the series and players can buy cocaine, set enemies alight, shoot a policeman, drink drive, and visit strip clubs – all with improved physics and animation which makes the game feel more real, according to reviewers.

I mean can anyone rule out that they really are on commission for the promoters. I mean who doesn’t want to set their enemies alight

Incidentally how many know that there is an autobiography on Gordon Copeland? Yes, seriously.

Very pleased to see the Broadcasting Standards Authority has again not given into pressure, and has not upheld complaints about Californication – just as they also did with Southpark.

I only started watching Californication after Family First started knocking out advertisers (something they are entitled to do), as I always regard the more a show is protested about, as a good guide for whether I will like it.

And the thing is, while the show has segments many find morally objectionable, such as a dream sequence with a nun and sex with a 16 year old, they are actually part of what is a well constructed plot. The sleeping with the 16 year old actually sets up a plot line throughout the entire first series, coping with the ramifications. And the lead character regrets doing it once he finds out her age (and more to the point funding out she is the daughter of his ex wife’s fiancee.

Southpark can be similiar. Yes it has some appallingly offensive scenes and language.  It  is often truly disgusting (just think Mr Hankey). But it often has a message behind its episodes, and many of the messages are good ones, that even religious and family groups would approve of  – such as  debunking the moral  panic over parents abusing their children. Of course there are some episodes, such as where Cartman tricks Scott Tenorman into eating his parents which don’t have much of a hidden message, except maybe don’t play tricks on people with an evil streak!

Rarely does a day go by, without Family First in the news. This is because Bob McCoskrie is a very very smart media operator. Not only does he do a press release a day, but he thinks outside the square.

Sure they do still sometimes do dumb stuff like trying to get Californication off the air through an advertiser boycott. Probably sent ratings soaring. But they are very smart when they do releases like this one in my inbox:

Family First NZ has offered to pay for a child to join their family on a dream holiday to Disneyland if they win the ‘nightmare’ trip in More FM’s current radio competition.

First prize in the competition is a family trip (worth $20,000) to Disneyland in both LA and Florida for 10 days. However, if the winning family tosses a coin and it is ‘tails’, one of the children has to stay behind.

“The competition has been ill-conceived and is potentially traumatic for a young family,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ, “and our understanding is that More FM has received a number of complaints about it, and that even some staff have concerns.” …

Family First hopes that the winner gets ‘heads’ on the coin, but in the event that it is ‘tails’, they are offering to fund the extra airfare so that the whole family enjoys a brilliant family trip together.

“Who wants to be at the departure lounge when little Jeremy waves goodbye to the rest of his family as they embark on their dream trip to Disneyland?”

This is seriously brilliant PR.  Instead of just complaining about the More FM competition, they front up with the $2K or so for the extra child, in case the family flips tails.

Today they have launched a ‘Have dinner with your family” campaign on billboards and in newspapers.  Not at all political – just pushing a families message.

If all they did was go on about smacking and rude shows on TV, they would be marginalised.  But Bob M manages to find a family angle to almost every issue, and get in the news on it.  A quick check of NZPA finds around 40 references to Family First – just in February.

Now don’t take this to mean I agree with all of Family First’s aims. Of their four current action alerts, I oppose them on three of the four – Californication, Hell’s Pizza, and Boobs on Bikes. I do agree on the anti-smacking law.

But one doesn’t have to agree with a group on something, to admire their media skills.  Likewise I don’t agree with the EPMU and Andrew Little on a lot of things – but I do admire his media operation.