Chicanery behind clamour for increased funding for sexual abuse services

Email : credo@surfer.co.nz

20^th April 2014

Hon. Paula Bennett,

Minister of Social Development,

Parliament Buildings,

Wellington.

Dear Ms Bennett,

Chicanery behind clamour for increased funding for sexual abuse services

For nearly forty years I have been observing and documenting the rise, and the activism, of the anti-male, anti-family, rape and family violence movements, and what I regard as their  pernicious impact upon NZ society. A major part of this activism is currently being played out in lurid, melodramatic fashion, aided by a collusive news media, to pressure you for greatly increased sexual abuse agency funding in the pending May Budget.

Yet all is not as it may seem; permit me to explain. In general, prior to the 1980’s people seeking rape, sexual abuse  domestic violence assistance and counselling sought this from church-based, family-oriented social services agencies. By 1979 ideologically driven anti-male, anti-family radical feminist influences began to infiltrate, and eventually dominate,  this situation

Evidence came in the form of two most compelling pieces of information:-

(a)      On rape : Rape Crisis was included in a lengthy list of activist groups thus : “Anarchists ….and latterly their more  Marxist ‘libertarian socialist’ and ‘anarcho-communist’ fellow leftists” etc. This by Christine Dann, of more recent times a Green Party senior staffer. (1)

(b)     On domestic violence and the establishing of Women’s Refuge (originally named Halfway House) “Halfway House was conceived by some Auckland feminists as being a tactic towards our liberation. Basically we wished to attack the institution of  marriage, and to salvage what womanity [sic] we could in the process.” Etc.(2)

So persistent and deceitful conspiring by these activists has clearly succeeded in creating a state-funded juggernaut in relation to rape/sexual abuse and family violence issues. In the process it has marginalised church-based, family-oriented services, virtually to the point of obscurity. This insidious process, moreover, has been achieved deliberately and systematically; indeed, one which I have researched and can demonstrate to you if required.

Should you question my charge of “persistent and deceitful lobbying”, a classic example was the scandalous duping of the NZ public with the publicity for the June 1988 Telethon. There, with shocking and melodramatic graphics, one was persistently told that  “one in four NZ girls is sexually abused before (they) turn eighteen. Half of them by their father, while one in ten boys can expect the same sort of treatment.” Only near the culmination of this fraudulent campaign (which was raising funds for family violence/rape/ agencies, no less!)  did the truth emerge. When pressed, Dr. Hillary Haines (later Lapsley) lesbian psychologist and deputy director of the Mental Health Foundation which had supplied the bogus figures,  brazenly admitted “of course they are only guessing with those figures, but in a sense it doesn’t really matter. The main point is that they shock! (3)

That astonishing admission of such breathtaking trickery was far from being the end of the matter however. Less than a year later, on 20^th April 1989, Kim McGregor, repesenting the HELP sex abuse centre, was repeating that lie on Newstalk ZB’s Bob McNeil midday radio talkback programme. When I phoned in to challenge this I was viciously slated, and accused of not caring about child abuse!

Over the years repetition of that lie has continued, clearly to exaggerate the need for sex abuse agency services, and invariably with any attempts to challenge it being suppressed. The latest example was by Wellington Rape Crisis manager Eleanor Butterworth at the recent enquiry into sexual violence services in NZ. (4) Yet my letter to the editor the same day, and quoting that scandalous admission of “guesstimates” has not been published.

To me the most devious and persistent perpetrator of that infamous falsehood is (now Dr.) Kim McGregor, now of the Rape Crisis-linked Rape Prevention Education (RPE) group – a misnomer if ever there was one, according to the warped ideological thinking of the rape lobby – see below. Just a glance at the RPE website demonstrates how blatantly and persistently – indeed even desperately – this lie gets constantly repeated.

In recent years that website has featured former Prime Minister Helen Clark, and later, Prime Minister John Key,  supporting that infamous lie, and even, at times, with this falsehood prefaced with the headline  “DID U KNOW” etc.Then, at the recent April 2^nd Auckland session of the sexual violence services enquiry, McGregor was heard  in numerous Radio NZ news reports, clamouring for  huge funding increases.

 As ideologically driven lobbyists, they are clearly in pursuit of greater power and influence. They have infiltrated schools and other areas of the community  and helped marginalise church-based helping agencies, yet claim to be overworked. Ms Bennett, I  contend that many of these lobbyists are simply vying to justify their existence, and that there should be a major re-evaluation of the present social services system  in this regard.

Behind their de-goodism bleats lie a warped and nonsensical belief system : that only women are victims of domestic violence, never men, and that  women are never violent, only  men; that a woman/girl  never, ever lies about domestic violence or rape/sex abuse, thus at times  leading to false allegations and gross injustices to accused men (to say nothing of likely ACC payouts to their accusers!); that regardless of the circumstances and the reality of any particular situation, a woman’s behaviour or state of dress (or even undress?) can never, ever be considered a contributing factor in a rape case.

Yet that kind of warped thinking influences the “counselling” and “therapy” of hugely Government-funded agencies. Now we learn that ACC is to double its budget for “sensitive claims” (sexual abuse or rape cases) at the end of 2014! (5)

With respect, Ms Bennett, I suggest to you that it is sheer confidence trickery for such lobbyists to claim their goal to be the prevention of rape/sex abuse. Surely, more likely,  the encouragement  of it, in order to  justify their very existence!

Such a scandalous situation  calls for an urgent enquiry. Also for a closer look at what is possible and available in the way of such social services from pro-family, church-based ones, as well as more funding for them as appropriate.

I await your reply in due course.

Sincerely,

(Barbara Faithfull) B.A. (Psych.Anthr.)

References

1. “Radical Feminism and the NZ Political Scene” in The Republican, July 1979.
2. Under “Evaluation and Conclusion”, Chapter 13, of He Said He Loved Me Really, by Bronwyn Banks, Jenny Ruth and Joy Florence, (Auckland 1979)
3. In “Statistics : The Facts”, Auckland Sun (now defunct) 18^th June 1988, page 27.
4. “It means getting your head around the fact [sic] that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 8 men have experienced sexual violence in their  lifetime” etc. In “Sexual Violence Enquiry Reveals Gaps in Services and Funding Shortfall”. NZ Herald 8^th April 2014.
5. As above, NZ Herald 8^th April 2014.

EUTHANASIA  BILL  DUPLICITY

Introduction

MP Maryan Street’s euthanasia bill is deeply fraudulent. It is ideologically driven and riddled with chicanery and contrived do-goodism. Yet there is no revealing of this, let alone a challenging of it, from the  leftist New Zealand news media, a challenge which surely cries out to be made.

Euphemistically named the End of Life Choices Bill, it was placed in the NZ Parliamentary ballot late July 2012, and by September 2013 it had been selected. However Ms Street decided to withdraw it until after the 2014 General Election, because she did not want it subjected to “anything other than proper, sober consideration.” (1)

Nevertheless, the fact that here is one more piece of proposed legislation, socialist to the core, as part of the shadowy international and revolutionary agenda  of Secular Humanism. Yet rarely does one ever hear this divulged, let alone does one hear a revealing of the deep personal involvement and bias of the bill’s sponsor. All one is likely to hear are emotional platitudes, such  as in this case, “compassion, dignity” etc.

Covert agenda for revolutionary social change

Firstly about Humanism itself. It has a major concern for population control, and has been described as  “Basically a philosophy which denies the existence of God, and elevates man, reason and science in His place. But, more than just a philosophy, it is a programme for social action.”(2) As for its covert international agenda for revolutionary reforms, decades ago this was broadly as follows and still has much relevance today:-

Easy abortion, euthanasia, easy divorce, abolition of censorship, no religious education in schools,  legalizing of homosexual acts, legalizing of soft drugs, classroom sex education.

Regarding the euthanasia issue, it has been operating at least since the 1960’s, and with  the Australian, New South Wales (NSW) Humanist Society in 1973 issuing a fulsome Euthanasia (Compassionate Death) booklet. Its Introduction baldly declares : “This report is based on the concept held by most humanists, that every individual has the right to choose the time of his or her own death.” (emphasis added)

Note 1 : Not simply those living unbearable lives, etc. as we constantly hear, but every individual, and for any  reason whatsoever.

Note 2 : This fits with the Humanist global concern for population control, as also do the abortion and homosexual aspects of this agenda.

Never reveal the underlying  Humanist influence

In the 1970’s the Humanists brought prominent NSW activist Dr. Jim Woolnough to NZ as part of their crusading zeal. He helped set up the Auckland Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) in May 1979, as well as spearheading the battle for the establishment of the  abortion service in Auckland. Typically, the Humanist strategy is  never to reveal the true influence driving its various campaigns, but  instead to establish various fronts, such as the VES for the euthanasia issue.   Some other NZ humanist fronts are, or have been :-

Abortion Law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ – still operating)

Homosexual Law Reform Association of NZ  (defunct)

Divorce Law Reform Association of NZ (presumably defunct)

Family Planning Association  via sex education

Councils for Civil Liberties etc.

Various relating to the pursuit of secular education

The merging of Humanists and Rationalists

In more recent years there has been a merging of the NZ Humanist Society with the Rationalists Association. They are now known as the NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) and their quarterly publication The Open Society, can be found in many libraries. There, one can see much evidence of the continued pursuit of the Humanist agenda. For instance, as recently as September 2013 there were features on homosexual “marriage” being legalised and an article by Maryan Street on her euthanasia bill.

Also in those publications are names of NZARH “Honorary Associates”, including : Richard Dawkins,  veteran NZ media man Brian Edwards CNZM, Ida Gaskin CNZM, Maurice Gee, Dame Barbara Goodman and Dame Catherine Tizard. Dame Barbara, of course was Mayoress of Auckland in the late 1970’s and fronted the Repeal pro-abortion campaign.

Going back a decade or so there is a  most revealing list  of recipients of  what is  known as the Charles Southwell Award for special services to the NZARH cause. As at 2007 the following were listed on the NZARH website http://www.nzarh.org.nz/awards.htm :-

2003      : Michael Laws (then a Radio Live talkback host) “For raising awareness of  controversial issues in a forthright and enquiring manner.”

2002      : Andrew Williams, North Shore (Auckland) City Councillor “For  his defence of the secular state in local government”.  Actually, for lobbying to have the Opening Prayer removed from Council meetings. He was not successful.

2001 : Dr. Philip Nitschke : “For his courageous advocacy of the right to choose death with dignity.” (i.e euthanasia.) A highly disturbing example of his “advocacy” was reported by Radio NZ News on  11^th August 2001, where he had urged a  suicide pill for emotionally troubled teenagers. He : “At a certain age you become old enough to understand about death, and if your life is no longer worth living in your estimation [emphasis added] you have the right to give it away.” Also, years later, this further Nitshke quote, as related by Retired Anglican Bishop Richard Randerson : “When you get someone like Philip Nitschke saying  ‘We should really shorten people’s lives because they’re a charge on the nation that we can’t afford’, we’re starting to measure life at that point in utilitarian and fiscal values.” (3)

2000 : Dr. Zoe During MBE: “In recognition of her many years of campaigning on moral, social and health issues.” – Euphemisms for  homosexuality and abortion issues.(4)

1999 :  Brian Rudman, NZ Herald journalist : “For his many years of equitable and informed [sic] journalism, often supporting views compatible with the objectives of this Association.”

1998 : Te Papa Tongarewa – the Museum of NZ : “In recognition of its defence of freedom of expression during its hosting of the  controversial Pictura Britannica art exhibition.” i.e. the “Virgin in a condom” controversy, which caused huge public outrage. Overseeing it was Museum director Cheryl Sotheron, most likely the true recipient of the award.

Maryan Street : political lesbian and leftist career activist

Where does this leave Ms Street and her euthanasia fellow travellers on this issue? Given the foregoing,  I contend, utterly devoid of credibility; more, practitioners of cultural subversion no less. Given her decades-old record as a radical leftist homosexual activist in the education system, as well as a defender of Cultural Marxism, aka political correctness, this would seem to be a particularly fitting description of her. (5)

As a lesbian activist teacher and prominent member of Auckland Feminist Teachers in the 1970’s-1980’s,  she and her colleagues exploited their positions of trust to politicise teenage girls into adopting anti-male, pro-abortion attitudes as High School Feminists. Inter alia the teachers also founded CAVE, the anti-corporal punishment lobby group, which spearheaded the moves leading to the outlawing of this in schools, the horrendous disciplinary repercussions of which are now evident.

Through the NZ Labour Party’s ranks Ms Street has been a top official over the years, and by 2007 even a Labour Government Cabinet Minister. As its President in 1993, she asserted that homosexuals were essential in teaching, child care, youth groups, and “to help young homosexuals regarding suicide.” (6)

Maryan Street : euthanasia activist

Now we have Ms Street, the euthanasia activist. She is  biding her time until after the 2014 NZ General Election before once more inflicting upon the NZ public her infamous bill. Thus she collaborates with a motley array of  fellow travellers, and with a bewilderingly contradictory array of grounds for their campaigning, such as :-

Maryan Street : “At the heart of this bill is compassion, dignity, and the right of someone with a terminal or irreversible condition to choose the moment when their life and their suffering ends.” (7)

Dr. Philip Nitshke : 1. Emotionally troubled teenagers should  have the right to a suicide pill. 2.”We should really shorten  people’s lives, because they’re a charge on the nation that we can’t afford.” (Both noted as above)

NSW Humanist Society report 1973 : “This report is based on the concept held by most humanists that every individual has the right to choose the time of his or her own death.” (emphasis added)

A major international humanist concern : global population control.(8)

Summary

Maryan Street’s  End of Life Choices bill is deeply fraudulent. It is ideologically driven, riddled with chicanery and contrived do-goodism. Its real objective would seem to be the “right” to choose  one’s own time of death, regardless of health or age factors. Moreover, even that may not be the truly long term goal, but simply a means to an even greater end : as part of covert, international revolutionary social reforms, as shown above.

Conclusion

The question then arises : will the largely leftist NZ news media acknowledge this, and question the motive and philosophical/ideological bias of Maryan Street to be sponsoring the bill?

If a bill was introduced by a known, devout Christian MP to, say, abolish abortion, or for some other hot-potatoe Christian cause, it would never stand a chance, because of the withering  media backlash it and its Christian sponsor would receive.

Yet, when an MP of Maryan Street’s dubious colours sponsors this duplicitous euthanasia bill, all is plain sailing. There is no acknowledgement of its culturally subversive nature, and questioning of this. Nor is there any challenging of her sincerity as an ostensibly deeply concerned and humanitarian individual – a challenge which surely cries out to be made.

References

1.       News in brief in The Open Society, NZARH, September 2013, page 19.

2.       Pat McCarthy : in “Humanism : A philosophy for social action” in Humanity (Auckland NZ) October 1980

3.       In calls to legalise euthanasia in NZ Listener, 15^th August 2009.

4.       The NZ Herald 25/26 November 2000 reported this honour  “for (her) career of tireless and outspoken support for liberal causes : abortion, homosexual law reform” etc.

5.      In Maryan Street’s Maiden Speech in Parliament, where she attacked critics of political correctness, or Cultural Marxism : “The shabby, slovenly thinking behind what is pejoratively termed ‘political correctness’; crass political opportunism.”.  NZ Herald 17 Nov.2005.

6.       Ms. Street heard in a recording of an address she had given to the homosexual Isherwood Trust. Radio GALA, Access Radio Auckland, 13^th July 1993  

7.       Maryan Street : “End of Life Choices  Bill” in The Open Society (NZARH)

      September 2012, page 14.

8.       Population – A Humanist Occasional Paper (Published by the Humanist Information Service of the Humanist Society, Christchurch NZ, May 1976)

Barbara Faithfull B.A.(Psych.Anthr.)

credo@surfer.co.nz

23^rd January 2014

RAPE INTRIGUE AND THE WIDER WAR ON CULTURE

Preface

Rape activism is driven  by a rigid , dogmatic belief that there exists in society an “oppressive patriarchy”. Therefore, also, that this exercises “power and control” over women – clearly Marxist terminology – and, ludicrously, with virtually nothing to do with sex.

Nowadays this deeper pernicious influence behind rape activism is well camouflaged, and masquerades, publicly funded in our education system, under a respectable cloak as “rape prevention education”.

It is even applauded by our current and  previous Prime Ministers, John Key and Helen Clark respectively. It is  high time to shed some light on this thorny subject. Society in general, and our young people in particular, surely deserve nothing less.

Rape rumpus

In early November 2013 NZ became embroiled in a furore following the boasting by some male teenagers of having sex with drunk and underaged girls, and  naming them on social media. Public outrage erupted, to the extent of some talkback hosts – Willy Jackson and John Tamihere on Radio Live -  being  removed from the air for “ insensitive and inappropriate” interviewing of a young woman caller…Advertisers boycotted the station etc. Social media ran rampant.

The wave of outrage even reached Parliament, with Labour’s  Jacinda Adern reportedly asking  whether police questioning a rape complainant about her clothing at the time of an alleged rape would  imply that what the girl was wearing could influence the case. (1) Also, with the Police Minister being challenged over an apparent lack of police action in the matter.

Come November 16^th 2013, the culmination of feverish media coverage and social media planning resulted in countrywide “rape culture” protest rallies.(2) Numbers were apparently anybody’s guess; for Auckland it varied from “about 700” to “a crowd of about 1000”.(3) Even the Man Booker prize  winner Eleanor Catton had a say,  terming “disgusting” writer C.K Stead’s NZ Herald letter describing the furore as “an embarrassing delirium”! (4)

There were other curious and emotive reports  from the protest rallies, along with the highly predictable calls for more Rape Crisis funding. Feminist lawyer Catriona McLennan accused the police of “failing to keep women safe”, and at least twice on Radio NZ news came  the sly canard, conveniently without attribution : “members of the rally said  young people need to be told that it (rape)  is never the victim’s fault!” (5) A mistaken notion, of course, based as it is upon the false and absurd  assumption that “the patriarchy” causes rape.

Marxist front groups

Going back to 1979 we can at least trace how this came about. In the  9^th July 1979 issue of the    ( leftist, now defunct) Republican was a major article “Radical Feminism and the NZ Political Scene” by Christine Dann, now a senior Green Party staffer. She included Rape Crisis there among a host of racial, gender, and environmental activists as : “Anarchists…..and latterly their more Marxist libertarian socialist and anarcho-communist fellow leftists” etc. That, then, clearly identified Rape Crisis as being an ideologically driven Marxist front group and would serve to explain the distorted and warped anti social attitudes which it holds, as outlined below.

Firstly, there is a distinctly Marxist nature to the rape activism view of what constitutes rape,  seeing it as having little or nothing to do with sexual attraction, and virtually everything to do with power and control .(6) This interpretation, of course,  fits with the myopic feminist belief that “patriarchy” is to blame for all rapes.

Secondly, following that, according to rapethink, a woman/girl never, ever,  lies about rape. Then when, of course, one is discovered to have lied, perhaps after deep police probing, (which rapethink terms “blaming the victim”) a rape activist comes to her defence and seeks “help” instead of punishment for her.

Such was the case with Dr. Kim McGregor of Rape Prevention Education (RPE) and Rape Crisis in Rotorua in January 2009, when a teenager had lied about being dragged by three youths and sexually assaulted. (7) Moreover, that was the second such false accusation handled by Rotorua Police within two months. Extrapolating that out NZ wide could make for interesting reading.

Thirdly, if “patriarchy” was to blame for virtually all rapes, naturally  a rape victim’s   behaviour or mode of dress would never be able to have any bearing on her plight, but of course reality decrees that “patriarchy” does not cause rape; personal circumstances of each particular case do.Therefore, surely, this must be constantly examined, despite the intimidatory cries of “blaming the victim” from  rape activists.

The bizarre  “patriarchy” theory will also explain the perverse attitude of Rape Crisis national co-ordinator Geogia Knowles when she declared it was “not relevant or appropriate” for police to question a rape complainant on what she was wearing at the time of a rape allegation, and with this not  even questioned by  Radio NZ interviewer Mary Wilson. (8)

Understanding the “patriarchy” theory is surely also essential to ensure that justice is done to all parties involved – to the accused as well as to the alleged victim. After all, in the confused thinking of rape activism, all men represent the enemy, namely patriarchy, and a few male victims of false accusations seem of little or  no consequence to them.

Fourthly, rapethink does not observe the correct term “allegation” for an unproven rape complaint, but slyly and fraudulently refers to any and all rape complaints as “disclosures” as if they are proven, cut-and-dried facts, when at least some may perhaps later prove to have been false complaints! No wonder Rape Crisis (as above) think police questioning of a complainant is “not relevant or appropriate”!

The saga of the bogus sex abuse “statistics”

Lastly, there have been decades of lying about the supposed epidemic level of  child sexual abuse (“1 in 3 or 4 girls” and “1 in 8 boys”). This originated from a 1979 NZ Woman’s Weekly questionnaire by lesbian activist and psychologist, Miriam Saphira, who was subsequently generously sponsored by the Mental Health Foundation to write copiously as an “expert” on the subject, but see more on this shortly. So the highly unscientific figures took wings through the 1980’s.

As (then) spokesman for Credo Society (seeking more credibility in the news media) I challenged the figures at every opportunity, but mainly in vain. By early 1988, and unaware of the major part they were destined to play in the coming scandalous June 1988 Telethon publicity campaign, I wrote to the (then) editor of the NZ Herald, Peter Scherer, as they were once more quoted  there as fact, only to have my letter rejected for publication. With no e-mails then, correspondence between us ensued for a short time; Mr. Scherer was adamant that I had not made a case for such a challenge.

Then I discovered in my records notes of a phone conversation he and I had had on 26^th September 1984 (he  then possibly as Letters Editor) where he had expressed awareness of the unscientific nature of those figures. So once more I wrote to him, reminding him of this and requesting that the letter be published to rebut the bogus figures. His response was swift and angry : he wrote a mere half line reply  - “Have it your way!” and published my letter that day, 7^th March 1988, but in garbled form. This of course left my letter  wide open to criticism  from several correspondents, which he readily allowed!

But wait! There’s more! As I have alluded to already, unknown to me at that time the NZ media was gearing up for a revenue bonanza in the form of blanket advertising for a June 1988 Telethon. Moreover, and unsurprisingly, beneficiaries of it were to be  various social helping agencies, many being radical feminist-based, such as those associated with rape and child sex abuse, as well as Women’s Refuge. Moreover, those fabricated, scaremongering   figures were to play a major part in that rich advertising campaign persuading the NZ public to donate generously, which  of course it did.

So as June 1988 approached, the advertising frenzy began : giant lurid images of a sleeping child and shadow of a predator father. Another huge image of four babies, one of whom, so it said, would be sexually abused by age 16 etc…

Then, a week before Telethon, the (then) Auckland Sun began questioning the situation, and interviewed lesbian psychologist Dr. Hillary Haines (later Lapsley) the Deputy Director of the Mental Health Foundation, (MHF) which had supplied the bogus figures for the campaign. There she had the gall to admit : “Of course they’re only guessing with these figures, but in a sense it doesn’t really matter. The main point is that they shock!”(10)MHF Director at the time, incidentally, and its founding director,  was Dr. Max Abbott, by 2013 Professor of Psychology and Public Health at AUT University)

Media further aids and abets rape activism

Less than a year after that brazen admission of the figures’ bogus nature, attempts were still being made to assert their credibility. One example was on Bob McNeil’s midday radio talkback show on Newstalk ZB on 20^th April 1989, where he appeared to be plainly in collusion with Kim McGregor, (then) of HELP Sex assault Centre.

I phoned in to challenge this, only for McNeil, after my call, to misrepresent what I had said, thus confusing listeners and  causing some to ring in and fiercely criticise me….I was not concerned about child sexual abuse etc.! I was then denied right of reply, even after twice phoning  station manager Brent Harman. His dismissive response was simply “You set yourself up!”

The sequel to this shameful episode came several weeks later, when I  held a one-person protest in Auckland’s Queen Street, complete with sign, and distributed copies of my Open Letter to Brent Harman outlining the shoddy details of that despicable affair. Although I never did receive an apology, I did have the satisfaction of observing that within weeks McNeil was off the air, and for good.

Fast forward now from 1989 to the 21^st century where, astonishingly,  McNeil and McGregor still appear to be in cahoots on feminist anti-violence issues, but now on TV3 News, and with her now Dr. Kim McGregor and director of the Rape Crisis entity Rape Prevention Education (RPE) (11) Indeed RPE grows from strength to strength as part of the burgeoning socialist/feminist-inspired bureaucracy covering rape, domestic violence and child sex abuse issues.

This virtual industry is well illustrated on the RPE website (rpe.co.nz) with such pretentious-sounding services as : courses for professionals on how to “respond to disclosures [sic] of sexual violence”, and general “delivery of education in the greater Auckland area, and nationally, to prevent sexual violence through the delivery of education and health promotion/prevention activities”; and all of course with an atheistic, anti-family, anti-male bias.

Moreover, RPE still enjoys ongoing support from the likes of the NZ Herald,  even with a  recent invitation for readers to donate to it. Also,  with the publishing of the bogus figures once more and, as usual, rejecting my letter (and perhaps others also) challenging this. (12) This, moreover, despite the Herald’s PR slogan “The more you know, the better!”It is surely time to call a halt to the nefarious activities of these state-funded charlatans, whose infiltration now runs deeply into NZ’s social fabric.

 So to summarise :  Rape activism sees rape as being about “power and control”, and somehow caused by “the patriarchy”, with little or nothing to do with sex, let alone moral values. This deeply contorted view results from its very ideological nature, and helps explain much warped and illogical thinking on the rape issue. This has now seeped deeply into NZ’s  publicly funded education system as “rape prevention education” – a misnomer if ever there was one – and is even championed by Prime Minister and former Prime Minister John Key and Helen Clark respectively in farcical testimonies on the RPE website.(13)Such rigid rapethink also decrees that rape complainants never lie; that their behaviour and mode of dress can never ever be a  contributing factor; that all rape allegations must be called “disclosures”, and that the bogus sex abuse figures must be treated as factual.

It is time to challenge such charlatans with their atheistic and anti-social world view, and their intimidating clamour for police not to probe too much the veracity of rape complaints, or related personal details. Nor should any such challenge be interpreted as the condoning of rape, but rather as a more legitimate, values-based approach to genuine rape prevention.

Moreover, a more legitimate means, I suggest, should mean greater funding and focus being placed upon church-based, pro-family helping agencies which, over the decades, have been systematically marginalized in favour of atheistic, ideologically driven ones.

Conclusion

We will never know how many youth suicides may have occurred, or been attempted, over the years through  the devilish  confusing and  misguiding of youth, as part of the  covert and pernicious war on culture engulfing NZ society, and with rape activism being but a part of this.

 Far more has yet to be revealed. Also the contemptible part played in this by various compliant sectors of the news media. Of necessity it must include the similarly subversive nature of Rape Crisis’ sister lobby Women’s Refuge, which enjoys NZ Herald and wide public sponsorship and support, This, moreover, despite its founders admitting in 1979 its “revolutionary nature” and its objectives being “to attack the institution of marriage” and gain information from victims of domestic violence “that we could then use as a weapon against patriarchal oppression”.(14)

To such fanatics, victim numbers are all-important, as a means to more funding – and more power. It is surely time  to direct troubled youth and  victims of rape and family violence – male as well as female – to values-based and  family-oriented agencies. Unless this occurs, I suggest, such social mayhem will only continue.

References

1.          NZ Herald 8^th November 2013 : wide coverage of Radio Live debacle.

2.          Radio NZ news 16^th November. Top news most of the day.

3.                   “                16^th November “About 700”; Stuff News 17^th “about 1000”.

4.          NZ Herald 14^th November.

5.          Radio NZ news 16^th November, 8 and 10 pm.

6.          Acknowledged as recently as 12^th November, letter to editor NZ Herald.

7.          Daily Post Rotorua 8 January 2009 : “Calls for help, not charges”.

8.          On Checkpoint, Radio NZ 7^th November.

9.          Credo Society seeking credibility and integrity in the  news media –now defunct.

10.       “Statistics : the Facts” in Auckland Sun 18 June 1988

11.       For example, along with a photo of McGregor and McNeil, a somewhat contrived story by him on TV3 News 21^st September 2009 entitled “Concerns Rugby World Cup will bring more domestic violence”; on http://www.3news.co.nz

12.       “Roast Busters’ questions scream for answers” : Toby Manhire quoted “Those sick-making statistics” etc. and Herald invitation to donate to RPE at conclusion of article. NZ Herald 8^th November.

13.       Helen Clark : “Thank you for the work you have done to keep women (and men) safe, and to educate and protect the community.” On rpe website 22 Sept.2009

John Key : “I applaud (RPE) for its work to improve awareness of sexual violence” etc. On rpe website 6^th September 2012.

     14.  Joy Florence, Bronwyn Banks and Jenny Ruth in their book He Said He Loved  Me Really (Auckland 1979). Re Halfway House, later named Women’s Refuge.(Ruth currently Business Editor at Radio NZ)

Lesbian activist admits homosexual "marriage" campaign a fraud

With so many media reports of jubilation over New Zealand’s 17^th April 2013 Parliamentary vote for homosexual “marriage”, and similarly around the world, I wait in vain for a dollop of balance and honesty on this issue. To be fair and accurate it would need to reveal the monstrously fraudulent nature of this issue. After all, it is covert and ideologically driven, and with its real objective - now finally admitted -  being to attack and undermine the institution of marriage and the traditional family unit. That, in turn, clearly being part of a far wider Leftist subversion of Western culture itself.

There is copious evidence attesting to the fraudulent nature of the homosexual “marriage” issue, from 1970’s examples of homosexual activists actually scorning and attacking marriage, to the more recent ruse of demanding marriage “equality”.

Firstly, evidence of earlier  anti-marriage campaigning:-

1. Some quotes from Australian commentator Bill Muehlenberg.:-

(a)    “The truth is, early gay radicals campaigned against marriage, not for it. : ‘Marriage is a rotten, oppressive institution’ said the 1970 Gay Manifesto.”

(b)   “ ‘Homosexuals are in revolt against the nuclear family structure’ said the influential Gay is Good tract  of 1972.” (1)

2.In 1979 three Auckland feminist founders of Women’s Refuge – Joy Florence, Bronwyn Banks and Jenny Ruth – admitted in their book He said he loved me really

: “Halfway House [as it was then known] was conceived by some Auckland feminists as a tactic towards our liberation. Basically we wished to attack the institution of marriage and salvage what womanity (sic) we could  in the process.”

2. “Marriage, apart from restricting your emotional and sexual experience with other people, can also be very destructive for the two people involved. They are both going to have feelings for  other people.” (2)

Evidence of later pro-marriage homosexual campaigning:-

By 1996 the homosexual political agenda was having a remarkable change of direction in this respect in NZ, with one example of this being much publicity  of six lesbians seeking the “right” to marry. However, there was also a group calling itself Lesbians Who Do Not Want a Bar of It. (3)

One of the abovementioned six lesbians was Lindsay Quilter (later Zelf) who, two months later, was on record with this highly revealing admission :-

            “When homosexual couples can also enter into the legal definition of marriage, i.e. if a homosexual couple who don’t live together, who don’t share their money, who don’t  share their property, and yet are in law married, they have already altered the shape  of the legal definition of marriage”.(4)

By 1998 there was further discussion on this issue on the Radio NZ Kim Hill Show, when she interviewed Mike Gabbard, US campaigner for the Stop Promoting Homosexuality International organization. He pointed out that group marriage was part of the wider homosexual political agenda :  “One of 17 demands put forth in 1972 at a Chicago convention was that homosexual “marriage” be legalized, and with no restriction on numbers involved.” (5)

By 2011 the NZ Herald was reporting “Celebs champion open marriage”, which included a report of a man living with two women. He: “We’re not a couple, we’re a triple.” (6)

Given the above evidence, any reasonable person would surely agree that in the past few decades there has been a monumental change regarding attitudes towards the institution of marriage and the family by the homosexual movement and Leftist activism in general, from fanatically attacking it as “a rotten oppressive institution”, to now hypocritically demanding the “right” to marry.

However, now at long last comes a whiff of honesty, an actual admission by a homosexual activist that the frenzied push to that end has all been a pack of lies, a deliberate duping of the masses.

It now seems that in 2012, and well before the NZ Parliament’s 17^th April vote for homosexual “marriage”, a  lesbian activist and author, Masha Gesson, had admitted on US radio that  the homosexual agenda is actually “to redefine the institution of marriage and eventually eliminate it. It is going to change and it should change. I don’t think it should exist..” (7)

So how about some  journalistic responsibility, some honest, truly objective reporting on this crucial issue for a change from our scandalously biased news media? In the meantime I won’t be holding my breath waiting.

References.

1.        In “Obliterating Parenthood and Families” in News Weekly 2^nd March 2013.

2.        In a “Homosexuality and Education” pamphlet circulated to some Christchurch schools by the (then) newly formed National Gay Rights Coalition of NZ, (NGRC) as reported in Concerned Parents’ Association Newsletter of April/May 1979. A member of the (then) NGRC executive was named as Christchurch teacher Robin Duff, now, in 2013,  Immediate Past President of the NZPPTA. Also in that pamphlet were listed eight “advantages” of being homosexual.

3.        As discussed on the Kim Hill Show, Radio NZ, on 27^th February 1996.

4.        In an interview  with Lindsay Quilter on the  homosexual G & T Show, Access Radio Auckland, 25^th April 1996.

5.        Kim Hill Show, Radio NZ, 25^th February 1998.

6.        “Celebs champion open marriage” by Joanne Carroll and Gillian Orr, NZ Herald.co.nz, 18th December 2011.

7.        Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506  Written by Micah Clark 6^th April 2013 : “Homosexual activist admits true purpose of battle is to destroy marriage”. Also on 29^th April 2013 as reported on the  US Glenn Beck TV programme, where a recording of the  Masha Gessen speech was played.

UK public funds depravity as homosexual "education"

Terrence Higgins Health Horrors

(WARNING: This post is not for minors. There’s some stomach-churning stuff here which is mainstream, endorsed by public authorities and funded in part by you and me. It is available to our children from a recommended and apparently reputable source. It urgently needs challenging.)

The charity Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) was formed in the first rush of the HIV/AIDS pandemic that panicked society in the early eighties. Named after a gay man who was among the first to die from AIDS in the UK and with its roots still in the gay community, THT claims now to be the nation’s leading and largest HIV and sexual health charity (here) having broadened its services to include the general population “especially young people who are most at risk of sexual ill health”.

Certainly THT has gained recognition and clout in health and education circles. It works regularly in partnership with NHS trusts (here), received £200,000 from the Department for Education last year to train “100 disadvantaged 14-19 year-olds to become Sexual Health Champions who will then go on to deliver peer-to-peer SRE (sex and relationships education) sessions for 2,000 more young people” (here), and runs Sex Education Days for teenagers alongside local accredited youth organisations (here).

Incidentally a young person I know was employed by THT last year in one of their local initiatives – a chlamydia survey amongst 14 to 25 year olds in east London. He was trained to approach young people in busy shopping centres (and, interestingly, to avoid any who were accompanied by adults) and persuade them to complete a survey and pee privately into a bottle. If they returned the bottle containing urine they received 10 free condoms. The pay was lousy and success rate low, so he left.

Nonetheless, so far so good. THT has become a reputable nationwide organisation with growing influence that works in association with public health and education authorities as a guide, counsellor and mentor to young people.

But read this astonishing health information for gay men direct from THT’s website and easily available to all, including THT’s youthful followers:

Watersports: “Watersports means letting piss get on his or your body or clothes – or in the mouth, or drinking it. Drinking plenty of beer – or water, apple or cranberry juice if you want to stay clear-headed – makes sure your urine isn’t too salty and smelly” (here).

Scat: “Scat is sex involving playing with shit, maybe eating it, too. Smearing shit onto healthy unbroken skin poses relatively little health risk if the person the turds came from is free of infections” (here).

Fisting: “Fisting involves inserting a hand, sometimes forearm, into the rectum – occasionally going up as far as the lower colon… Fisting fans call it the ultimate sexual experience, giving intense feelings of trust and intimacy” (here).

Felching: “Felching involves sucking (usually your own) semen out of someone else’s arse – with or without a straw” (here).

So, mainstream publicly-funded THT advises on drinking urine, eating faeces, inserting forearms up recta and sucking semen from anuses.

What depravity and insanity is this?

Health authorities tell us that we mustn’t smoke (here); THT counsels gays on playing with and even eating human excrement.

The NHS says we should eat 5-A-Day (here); THT advises gays about gulping semen from backsides.

THT’s gay health information is sick and evil. The organisation must lose its public funding and charity status. Its programme of targeting minors should be outlawed immediately. And its advice and information needs to be relegated to the repulsive ranks of the most depraved hard-porn gay sites on the web.

----------------------------------

The above article was written by Alan Craig, an English Christian activist, former businessman and local body politician. It was posted on Monday July 2^nd 2012 and can be found on www.alansangle.com/?p=1035  

He can be contacted at alancraig3@aol.com

"Sex" or "Gender"?

As New Zealand in 2012 wrestles with the homosexual “marriage” issue……

“Sex” or “Gender”? This prophetic question  was raised  in the

1993 Human Rights Bill campaign

On 16^th February 1993, in Radio New Zealand’s Morning Comment,  Peter Berry, a Hastings Patent Attorney, discussed the use of the word “gender” instead of “sex” in the 1993 Human Rights Bill. The following is an extract from that item.

He began by remarking how much the word “gender” was used those days instead of the word “sex”. He then pointed out that the (then) current Human Rights Bill would prohibit  discrimination on the grounds of  gender, “but it is not defined”.

“Do ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ mean the same? Well, in short, they don’t. ‘Sex’ is a biological term; ‘gender’ a grammatical term.

“There are two sexes : male and female, and at least three genders : masculine, feminine and neuter. Some grammars add a couple more : common and epicene (having the characteristics of both sexes). If ‘gender’ is to be used to mean ‘biological sex’, how many sexes are we to have?

“The Golden Rule of the legal draughtsman is said to be ‘Never change your language unless you wish to change your meaning’. And the English writer Belloc observed : ‘When people start changing words they want to change ideas.

“Does the change of words from ‘sex’ to ‘gender’ reflect a change of ideas about what sex is?

“Are the biological categories of male and female to be enlarged to include the homosexual, the transsexual, and possibly the paedophilic?

“If so, let’s have it out in the open now, so that the public are aware of what is proposed.” (End of quote)

Surely this has immeasurable relevance for today's debate on the homosexual "marriage" issue?

"Promotion of Homosexuality a Threat to National Security"

Just as New Zealand’s Parliament  is about to vote on the question of legalising homosexual “marriage”, why do Russia and the Ukraine outlaw even any promotion of homosexuality?  Because they believe the spread of homosexuality is a threat to national security.

There is indisputable evidence that over the past few decades there has been a systematic attack  on traditional cultural values in the West, and I contend that an integral part of this has been, and is, a Socialist-based promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. Later I have evidence that such pernicious subverting of culture – known as the culture war -  seems to be permitted only in the West, never in Socialist countries, because of its insidious threat to destroy the family and risk to national security.

Such a  focus upon the West now even sees demands for legislation for homosexual “marriage” and adoption; a far cry, of course, from the time when homosexuality was classified  in psychiatric literature as a behaviour disorder. Indeed, it was only after  dogged and fanatical “gay rights” political pressure was exerted upon the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that such classification was removed in the early 1970’s.(1)

So since then there has been a treacherous and gargantuan leap in the West to  promote homosexuality  as a “valid lifestyle”, and even   with homosexual proselytizing in schools,  costly mass public “pride” events etc. Indeed, in February 2013 the ratepayers of Auckland, New Zealand, will be forced to contribute $100.000.00 for a thirteen day “Pride Festival” and “Pride Parade”, much to the disgust of many.

Opposing such  revolutionary change has long been the reparative therapy movement, with many in the mental health field practising what is known as conversion therapy.  As a result many have renounced their homosexuality, much to the wrath of the homosexual lobby.

From the 1970’s a major influence in this field has been the California-based National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality (NARTH). A 1978 article by its past president,  Charles W. Socarides M.D., The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual, and still available,  documents the scandalous developments leading to the APA’s  capitulation to the early 1970’s bullying tactics of the homosexual lobby.(2).

Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas is another who holds to the reparative therapy view,  declaring homosexuality to be  “a clinical process that has an etiology, pathogeny,

treatment and cure”. (3)  Speaking on 30^th April 2008 at a Buenos Aires, Argentina, book fair, about his book Goodbye Depression, Rojas characterised  homosexual orientation as a “disorder” rather than an illness, and sees it as the result of an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood.

He blasted the homosexual movement for promoting the development of homosexual tendencies in young people, and particularly condemned the practice of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children…..the child is deprived of the right to grow up “in a normal environment, heterosexual, which is the standard”, he said. “Heterosexuality is what is normal, the natural condition of human beings.” He said according to studies from the U.S., Canada and New Zealand there is a 70-80 percent chance that a child adopted by homosexuals will develop the same tendencies..

Not that people in those countries are likely to be informed of this by their largely leftist-oriented media. Now, to compound such revolutionary, anti-social trends comes the astonishing news that California State has banned reparative or conversion therapy for minors.(4) The law will prohibit sexual orientation change efforts for anyone under 18 and will “stop children from being psychologically abused” according to  Democrat Senator Ted Lieu of his bill SB1172. He : “The therapies have no basis in science or medicine.” etc.

Predictably the homosexual lobby “welcomes” this development and calls the practice of conversion therapy “dangerous, because it can put youth at higher risk of  depression and suicide”…The homosexual Human Rights Campaign “is grateful to Governor (Jerry) Brown for standing for California’s children” etc. ran some nauseating diatribe.

Some religious groups and Republicans, however, fear such a  move will hinder parents’ right to provide psychological care for children experiencing gender confusion, while NARTH  sums up this move thus : that Lieu’s claims of harm to children (from therapy) “were based on politics, not research”.

A similar  response came from Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel : “The California  Governor and legislature are putting their own preconceived notions and political ideology ahead of children and their right to get access to counselling that meets their needs.”.(5)

For sure political ideology will have driven that revolutionary piece of legislation, and of course, in order to serve the  ends of the homosexual lobby and their fellow Socialists.

Now, however, for the explosive news to which I referred earlier, and which we in the West can be fairly  sure will never be reported by our mainly pro-left, pro-homosexual media, and it is this. In a 10th October 2012 report came news that in Russia and the Ukraine politicians are treating homosexuality like a curable addiction and even a crime.(6).

It reads : “Last week, acting on a widespread popular belief that sexual orientation is a matter of indoctrination, the Ukrainian Parliament gave its preliminary approval  to a bill that makes ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ a criminal offence punishable by a fine of about $10,000.00 or as many as five years in prison. The spread of homosexuality is a threat to national security, because it propagates the HIV/AIDS epidemic, destroys the family, and could lead to a demographic crisis.” etc.(Emphasis added)

So I see an astonishing paradox here. On the one hand, presumably as part of the Socialist subverting of the West’s traditional cultural values, in the West it is anathema to regard homosexuality as a behaviour disorder, and (in some instances) to permit conversion  therapy for the treating of it as such. At the same time, there is limitless promotion of the homosexual lifestyle, even to the extent of current demands for homosexual “marriage” and adoption, and all in the spurious  causes of “anti-discrimination” and “equality”.

Yet on the other hand we find that currently Socialist nations such as Russia and the Ukraine are outlawing even the most basic of homosexual political activism, the “propaganda of homosexuality” – and never mind homosexual “marriage” and adoption – as a threat to national security and to the family! Also, they are treating homosexuality  “like a curable addiction” and even  a crime!

So here, surely, we have irrefutable evidence of how the traditional cultural values of the West are being deliberately subverted. In the case of demands for  homosexual “marriage” it is driven by the pernicious and covert exploiting of political grievances of the international militant homosexual lobby.

As for  Socialist  motivation behind this, and other homosexual political activism,  ironically it will most likely be for the very  same, but admittedly perverse, reason given for outlawing such  culturally subversive moves in Russia and the Ukraine : because such an attack on marriage  is a threat to family stability!  

Let us hope that our NZ legislators, and others also in the West, may get to see through this devilish intrigue before it is too late.

20^th October 2012

References

1. Re A.P.A. : In 1973 and from  the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)
2. The Annals of Homosexuality. http://www.narth.com/docs/annals.html
3. “Eminent Psychiatrist says Homosexuality is a Disorder that can be cured” – LifeSiteNews.com 1 May 2008. Matthew Cullinan Hoffman.
4. “California law bans gay teen ‘conversion’ therapy” – Asstd Press 1 Oct.2012 – Yahoo News
5. “Christian legal aid group to challenge California’s new ban on gay conversion therapy” – WordNews 1 Oct. 2012. http://wordnews.org
6. “ ‘Curing’ Homosexuality in Russia and Ukraine” by Leonid Bershidsky, 10 October 2012. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-10/-curing-homosexuality-in-russia-and-ukraine.html