THE CARBON CREDITS SCAM, FOREIGN LAND SALES AND DIRTY TOXIC POLLUTED WATER

15th May 2019  NZ Herald heading “Is Eugenie Sage the Most Dangerous Minister in Jacinda Ardern’s Government”?

RNZ reported 13th November 2018 that Green MP Eugenie Sage accused of rubber stamping land sales to foreigners. It was revealed than Land Information Minister and Green MP Eugenie Sage had approved nearly every application to cross her desk over 9 months, just rejecting only 30 hectares out of 60,000 hectares of land. Sage allowed a Chinese water bottling giant to expand

Between 1st November and 26th July Sage approved 21 applications covering 55,957 hectares. Sage said roughly 40,000 hectares were related to the sale of Mount White Station a sheep and beef farm in Canterbury. Many of the applications were related to forestry, which is a priority area for the government,  she said. Adding we need more forestry to meet the billion trees commitment to ensure that New Zealand is sequestering enough carbon to meet the government’s climate change objectives.

I personally believe the carbon credit scheme is a sham, that will cost farmers their land and the country a huge economic loss. It’s a fraud in which the Taxpayers of New Zealand and Consumers will have to cough up big time for. Who is an environmental law and policy expert had spent years working on the integrity of the Australian Govt’s carbon credit system launched an attack on the scheme, saying it’s a fraud, is hurting the environment and wasting a $billion of Australian Taxpayer funding.

This news article referred to major implications for the credibility of the Coalitions $4.5billion ‘direct action’ emissions reduction fund in which the government buys carbon credits from rural land owner and other businesses. This also raised questions as to the rapidly growing number of polluting companies promising to buy carbon credits to offset their impact on the planet. The private market in carbon credits being worth $150million per year in Australia.

As for NZ and its growing a billion or so tree’s for 20 years the Local Government Act has allowed companies in NZ to pollute  farmers  bore water  through what Fonterra calls ‘Nutrient Management’ and Arderns Carbon Zero and the hypocrisey of it all. Take Fonterra’s 29 Ghost Farms for instance. Fonterra would rather call them ‘Nutrient Management Farms’ across New Zealand. Fonterra have purchased farms, removed the stock and used the land for piping their factory cleaning waste water onto these farms and then sprayed it across these farms.

One News Feb 10th 2021 News Article ‘Council, Government ‘failure’ is why Fonterra can discharge toxic waste water on empty farms says ecologist. That Local and Central Govt are failing to adequately limit industry’s discharge of wastewater on land, which puts people health and environment at risk. The article refers to an assessment by Victoria University professor Mike Joy on Breakfast Today RNZ where a Waikato couple unacceptable levels of nitrates in their bore drinking water. Fonterra had emptied nearby farms of cows and used the land as tips for waste water. But, Fonterra is within the law to continue discharging this toxic waste water. Fonterra said its part of its circular nutrient management system, that the water would help the grass grow. The grass is cut, then taken elsewhere to feed cattle. This is namely ‘Cut and Carry’.

Ground water testing found that this showed dangerously high nitrate levels of 10 12 milligrams per litre. The maximum level allowed under the National Policy for Freshwater Management is 2.4 milligrams per litre. This is putting bank balances before human health. Wealth NOT health. An analysis by RNZ found few councils monitored breaches to trade water consents, often turning a blind eye  to this. And Fonterra’s not the only one getting away with Trade Wastewater breaches either. More on this with my next blog.

But what does the Government do.. BLAME THE FARMERS..-..THROW THE FARMERS UNDER THEIR TRACTORS….- . USE THE FARMERS AS THEIR WHIPPING BOY and continue to sell off more farming land for forestry to overseas buyers. SUPPORT NEW ZEALAND FARMERS- NO FARMERS EQUATES – NO FOOD.

NEXT BLOG WILL INCLUDE HOW THE GOVT HAS NEGLECTED TO PROTECT NZ’S WATER.

LINKS:-

Audrey Young: Is the Green Party’s Eugenie Sage the most ‘dangerous’ minister in Jacinda Ardern’s Government? – NZ Herald

Green MP Eugenie Sage accused of ‘rubber-stamping’ land sales to foreigners | RNZ News

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/australias-carbon-credit-scheme-largely-a-sham-says-whistleblower-who-tried-to-rein-it-in

https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/02/09/council-govt-failure-is-why-fonterra-can-discharge-toxic-wastewater-on-empty-farms-ecologist/

 

 

...

Other Blog Posts

SEARCHING FOR THE DETAILS AND MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE

The minor parties are not publically speaking about what lies behind the bigger picture of the Governments narratives. WHY NOT???

UN NEWS 2022…The Green Party welcomes the next steps towards implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Aotearoa, and calls on the Government to get on with the mahi of upholding Tangata Whenua rights.

“Implementing UNDRIP has been a long time coming, especially as Aotearoa was one of the last countries to support it, even though Māori helped write it, so let’s just get on with the mahi and do what Māori have consistently said for decades,” says Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, spokesperson for Māori Development.

“Thousands were involved in the consultations for Matike Mai; these voices form the foundations of the whare that we need to build together here in Aotearoa.

“These practical steps to uphold Tangata Whenua rights through the implementation of UNDRIP are important, and the feedback clearly shows this requires a restoration of tino rangatiratanga. This should form the basis of our journey towards constitutional transformation.

PLEASE CLICK  IN THE IMAGE ABOVE THIS WILL TAKE YOU TO MY RUMBLE VIDEO ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC.

...
Carol Sakey
HATE SPEECH

INCITEMENT TO HATE SPEECH

HATE SPEECH FACT SHEET.  This Fact Sheet has been written for Family First by Rodney Lake “Free speech is my right to say what you don’t want to hear” GEORGE ORWELL In a free and open society, distasteful opinions are met with open inquiry, civil dialogue and debate. If I don’t like what you say, even if I find it offensive, I meet your ideas with my own in an attempt to discover something approaching the truth. But this is all about to change, with potentially devastating consequences

WHO DECIDES WHAT’S “HATEFUL”? One of the most disturbing realities of criminalising “hateful” speech is that there is simply no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes “hate” in speech. For a law to be just, those who are controlled by it must be able to clearly see what it permits and what it forbids – and hate speech laws have proven throughout history to be unable to do this. Without a clear definition, how will you know when or if you have broken the law?

“There is no jurisdiction in the world where a statute has been enacted that offers a clear definition of what hate speech is. Consequently, it is left to the police and the courts to determine. This raises the problem of citizens not knowing precisely where the boundary of criminality of speech begins.” Historian and Professor, Dr Paul Moon

Imagine road laws with strict penalties for speeding, but with no speed limits in those laws, or no speed limits posted on our roads; just a vague sense that the courts get to decide on a case-by-case basis if you were speeding or not. You could never know if you were breaking the law and would live in constant fear of punishment. This would be bad law.

CULTURAL FRAGILITY Another problem is the growing fragility of a society increasingly subject to emotionally-based reasoning. Those who are easily “triggered” by offence tend to automatically presume hateful motives where none exist. Criticism and ridicule end up being construed as harmful and thus the desire to treat them as criminal acts. Traditional beliefs about human sexuality and identity, which have been held by the majority of humankind across diverse cultures for thousands of years, are only recently construed as “hateful” by the LGBT community.

Some passages from the Bible are indeed insulting. After all, who wants to be told they are a sinner? Yet the claim that “We are all sinners in need of forgiveness” is central to the Christian faith and has never been motivated by “hate”, quite the contrary. Under these proposed laws, people’s presumed reactions to your speech will become crucial to determining criminal intent. You may not actually intend harm, but if your speech is considered as showing hatred towards a particular group of people, you can be charged with inciting hatred and face a criminal conviction

So the first and most important question in the debate on hate speech is: What constitutes “hate”? Who gets to decide? Who will be the moral arbiters who determine when and if someone is guilty of “hateful” speech?

YOUR RIGHT TO SPEAK = YOUR RIGHT TO HEAR = YOUR RIGHT TO THINK The right to freedom-of-speech may seem minor to most kiwis who typically don’t have public platforms under threat. But this issue runs much deeper than just your right to speak, as it also includes your right to HEAR, and your right to THINK. You have a right to hear both sides of any debate3 – even viewpoints which are wrong or offensive to you. Laws which prevent others from speaking freely result in you no longer hearing opinions you might want to hear and evaluate for yourself. You have a right to offend, but also a right to be offended, meaning you have a right to hear ideas and perspectives which you disagree with

In addition, if I say you’re free to sit anywhere in the room, but I will punish you if you don’t sit on the chair I’ve chosen for you, then you are not truly free. Likewise, freedom of conscience means you can believe what you want, but hate speech laws will forbid you from expressing viewpoints which deviate from a vocal minority. So are you really free to think what you want?

Freedom of conscience – the freedom to think – is not truly free if you are not free to act on your beliefs and speak your mind.

A Speak Up For Women billboard (see below) was removed recently in Wellington. In a statement, billboard company Go Media said it was removed as soon as the company started fielding calls from offended New Zealanders. 4 Speak up for Women sought to hold public meetings to highlight threats to protected female-only spaces by biological men identifying as women. They have been subject to an intense smear campaign, uncharitably labelled a “hate group”, and harassed by public officials, councillors and mayors seeking to cancel their events. There is little doubt, if hate speech laws existed today, they would have been used to full effect to shut down this group

NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT Unfortunately, however, some will abuse their right of free speech with ‘shock tactics’ intentionally designed to inflict deep hurt and offence to gain attention for their cause. We must not be afraid to call such behaviour out as intentionally offensive and unwarranted. Free speech is not an absolute right, and the right to offend and be offended is not an end in itself, but simply the best means we have of wrestling with competing truth claims in the midst of conflicting viewpoints. Exercising free speech responsibly and thoughtfully is the best antidote to hate speech. But we still have a moral obligation to others to speak respectfully and kindly, even in disagreement.

SPEECH IS ALREADY LIMITED There are many things we are not free to speak about. Commonly accepted boundaries and laws set limits on free expression when that expression conflicts with the rights and protections of others. Examples includes laws on: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food-labelling, nondisclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, public security, perjury and more. These restrictions on your freedom of speech are widely accepted as part of a civil society. Likewise, threatening and abusive speech is also already banned because the consequences of harm can be directly linked to the speech in question.

EXISTING LAWS ALREADY OUTLAW HATE CRIMES “Hate crimes” are already illegal! A “hate crime” is an offence motivated by a hostility to the victim because they are a member of a protected group. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful to incite hostility or discriminate against a group based on their colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, or to discriminate against people based on their sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status or sexual orientation under the Act. Conduct amounting to a hate crime (e.g. assault) has been well defined throughout existing laws to ensure such crimes are punished justly. Laws which already address harmful speech include:6

The Human Rights Act 1993 • The Summary Offences Act 1981 • The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 • The Broadcasting Act 1989 • The Harassment Act 1997 • The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 • The Sentencing Act 2002.

For example, the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits speech that is “likely to excite hostility or ill-will against”7 a person because of their identity in one of the above racial or ethnic groups. So, for example, if you try to incite a mob to go beat up Asian people, you can be charged with inciting violence under these laws – even if the mob never commits those acts. There isn’t the need for further criminal laws to address such acts of hate and incitement to violence because such laws already exist!

SO WHY THE PROPOSED LAW CHANGES? Law changes are proposed to address what is believed to be missing: specifically, the “incitement of hatred and discrimination” against ‘protected groups’ – which will be expanded to include all groups listed in the Human Rights Act (see above). The effect will be to significantly lower the bar for actions to have criminal intent, from the current “incitement of hostility or violence” to a much more worrisome and ill-defined “incitement of hatred”. The current Ministry of Justice discussion document proposes a person “would break the law if they did so by being threatening, abusive or insulting”8 So you could potentially commit a criminal offence simply by insulting someone who belongs to one of these ‘protected groups’.

‘HATE’ SPEECH? If you said “Only women give birth”, are you intentionally inciting hatred and discrimination, or simply stating what you believe to be a biological truth? ‘The proposed law also seeks to expand the above list of protected groups to include gender identity, to “clarify the protections for trans, gender diverse and intersex people”. This will include “gender expression and gender identity”9 . This means any speech deemed offensive to transgender people could be considered a criminal act punishable with fines or imprisonment.

The Reverend Dr Bernard Randall was appointed Chaplain of Trent College in the UK in 2015 to provide pastoral care, share the Christian faith and lead services in the school’s chapel. In a recent sermon, he defended the pupils’ right to question the school’s introduction of new LGBT policies, and encouraged respect and debate on ‘identity ideologies.’ Following the sermon, Dr Randall was reported by the school to PREVENT, the anti-terrorism unit which normally identifies those at risk of radicalisation. He was eventually made redundant by the school. His 12-day employment tribunal hearing has been delayed until September 2022.10

Australian tennis great Margaret Court holds the alltime record of 24 grand slam single titles. But as the Pastor of Victory Life Centre in Perth, her comments on the redefinition of marriage, homosexuality and the transgender community have sparked protests and calls to rename Court Arena (named after her) including by fellow tennis greats Martina Navratilova, Billie Jean King, and John McEnroe who labelled Court Australia’s “crazy aunt” (apparently this is not hate speech).11

THE TRUE GOAL: INTIMIDATION AND SELF-CENSORSHIP The hidden agenda behind such laws is the development of a culture of fear and self-censorship for the purpose of political intimidation and control. Thoughts and ideas which are undesirable to special-interest groups will be able to be silenced simply by framing them as “hateful”. Such groups will claim to believe in free speech, just as long as it’s speech THEY approve of

The result will be a population too afraid to express unpopular opinions, and no longer participating in the vital democratic process of debate and civil discourse necessary for a free and open society. “The very last thing New Zealand needs is the chilling effect of hate speech police stifling our thoughts and monitoring our every utterance. Yet, if the law changes go ahead, the result will be that fewer Kiwis will openly speak their mind for fear the Police will come knocking on their door. It will indeed be an ominous day for New Zealand if the Police become the enforcement unit of ruling politicians and their activist allies against free citizens expressing contrary opinions…” Muriel Newman, former MP – “Muzzling free speech”12

NECESSARY FOR SOCIAL REFORMS Freedom of Speech has been essential to the success of significant past reforms such as: the abolition of slavery, the right for women to vote, the American civil rights movement, opposition to apartheid in South Africa, and the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s easy to claim, in hindsight, the outcomes of these significant cultural moments should have been obvious. But we forget these battles were fought by courageous people publicly voicing unpopular opinions against the prevailing attitudes of the time. Hate speech laws would have been a significant threat to the fearless voices of reform in those movements.

ON MULTIPLE FRONTS The proposed law changes are just one front on which freedom of speech is threatened. The battle is also being fought on four other fronts where social, rather than criminal, sanctions are being used as weapons of political intimidation.

FIRST: Workplace Intimidation The infiltration of social activism, political agendas and “woke politics” into corporate workplaces and policies is very concerning. Employees who hold views not considered politically-correct in the workplace are bullied into silence and self-censorship through intimidation, ridicule and threat of losing positions or employment. Many privately report they stay silent on personal political or religious views for reasons of self-preservation. In the workplace, tolerance has become a one-way street.

SECOND: Corporate Cowardice Threats of boycotts and brand-reputation-damage for businesses who do not follow the latest woke narrative are increasingly common, resulting in corporate cowardice in an attempt to appease the activist mob. Company directors and government department leaders should stop being intimidated and distracted by woke demands, and focus on business and mission interests ahead of political ones. Another form of corporate cowardice is book banning, where book sellers remove titles from their catalogues which are supposedly “harmful”. This is entirely hypocritical in the example of Amazon, who have delisted titles which question gender ideology e.g., “When Harry Became Sally” by Ryan T. Anderson, while still selling Hitler’s political manifesto, “Mein Kampf”, for the purpose of academic analysis.13

THIRD: Big-Tech Censorship This includes intimidation from takedowns, shadowbanning, traffic throttling, demonetisation, and suspension of accounts. The passive acceptance in the general public of these increasingly heavy-handed tactics of big-tech and corporate censorship, supposedly for our own protection, is a very concerning threat to our open and democratic society

FOURTH: “Cancel Culture” Public figures and professionals are lynched on social media and de-platformed for questioning popular woke ideology, sending a clear message of intimidation to others to selfcensor. Public meetings and platforms should be a place where the free exchange of ideas are debated in a pursuit of truth. But disruptive protests, venue cancelations, and even threats of violent protests are being used as excuses to shut down such events

These four types of censorship and intimidation have resulted in the silencing of dissenting ideas and open dialogue on continuous issues which deserve to be openly debated.

WHAT IS WOKE? To be Woke is to have been “woken up” to the important social justice issues of the day and hold a more radical progressive view on issues of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and identity. Being Woke means being aware of injustices according to progressive values, and embracing social reengineering in an attempt to deconstruct traditional values and institutions (such as the nuclear family and the Church) which are falsely seen as a threat to addressing those injustices

DRIVING UNSAVOURY IDEAS UNDERGROUND An unforeseen result of the suppression of free speech is the driving of genuinely hateful, radicalised and dangerous groups (such as neo-Nazi groups) underground into private dark-web echo-chambers. Dr Paul Moon says, “The case could be made that restrictions on the open expression of ideas could end up intensifying radicalisation… Anyone who thinks that a change in law will diminish hate clearly has little grasp on history.”14 You can’t always fix hateful and obnoxious ideas simply by banning them. Rather, when allowed into the sunlight of public discourse, they can be thoroughly and publicly discredited. The result being those who are susceptible to such dangerous ideas can be inoculated against them.

“Underlying prejudices, injustices or resentments are not addressed by arresting people: they are addressed by the issues being aired, argued and dealt with preferably outside the legislative process. For me, the best way to increase society’s resistance to insulting or offensive speech is to allow a lot more of it. As with childhood diseases, you can better resist those germs to which you have been exposed.” UK Comedian Rowan Atkinson (a.k.a. Mr Bean)

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS The discussion document the Ministry of Justice released in June 2021 raises significant unanswered questions, beyond the broader principles highlighted above, including:

Why are only some groups protected and not others? The proposed laws want to expand existing “incitement” protections to other presumably vulnerable groups such as gay, lesbian, transgender, non-binary, etc. Yet those groups tend to be those which progressive left-leaning “woke” people want to protect. Why only those groups? Aren’t all humans hurt by hate, regardless of their group membership? Will Christians be a protected group?

The most prominent recent case of cancel culture and the consequence of perceived ‘hate speech’ is Israel Folau who tweeted firstly his personal view opposing the redefinition of marriage, and then in response to a specific question put to him, a paraphrase of a bible passage. The public reaction to his social media posts was entirely disproportionate to his actions and amounted to a public lynching intended to destroy him and his career. If hate speech laws existed at the time, it can be assumed they would have been applied to his situation without mercy

Why such harsh penalties? Proposed penalties of up to three years imprisonment and fines of up to $50,000 are entirely disproportionate to the presumed harm suffered. Common assault is only punishable by up to one-year imprisonment. Why is the punishment for hate speech crimes three times greater? What does that say to the victims of actual violent crime?

What about conflicting interests? If a mosque insults an LGBT group with its teaching on homosexuality, while the same members of the LGBT group insult Islam with its teaching on organised religion, whose right to be protected from “hate” would prevail? Or could they both be prosecuted?

Can the Police and Courts cope? How will our already stretched criminal justice system cope with the flood of bitter complainants and defendants eager to have their rights protected from “hateful” ideas? Is it really the job of the police and courts to mediate disputes involving offended feelings?

Is there a difference between public and private speech? Will the expression of opinions in private places be protected under the law? Or can I be punished for expressing offensive views to friends and family around the BBQ or dinner table?16

What about political viewpoints? The line between political views and moral views is impossible to define. What if political views questioning government policy are deemed offensive and “hateful”? Could I go to prison for merely insulting someone’s political beliefs?

What about religious expression? Will reading a Bible verse in church, or a passage from the Koran in a mosque break the law? Could my pastor/minister face imprisonment and fines for merely teaching certain (offensive to some) passages from the Bible? Will my religious expression be protected?

CONCLUSION Proposed hate-speech laws are being smuggled in 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 law changes our country has faced in recent history. Belonging to a group should not afford special protections that result in the removal of the rights of others to disagree with them. Political activists and special interest groups will miss the important distinction between hate-speech, and merely speech they hate, and end up using such laws as tools of political intimidation to punish opponents and shut down debate in the marketplace of ideas. Laws already exist banning the incitement of violence. There is far too much ambiguity in what constitutes “hate”. And the risk

SPEAK UP Exercise your freedom of speech and make your voice heard. Make a submission to your MP, the Ministry of Justice or any future Select Committee considering such laws. Visit HateSpeech.nz for further instructions and forward this Fact Sheet onto others to help get the word out. of misapplication and abuse for political ends is far too high. These laws must be rejected for the sake of a fair, open and democratic society

In 2018, Warkworth baker Kath received a request to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding which she politely refused due to her personal beliefs on the definition of marriage. Consequently, she was harassed with days of intense media coverage and vitriolic ‘hate speech’ accusations and physical threats including her home address on her social media accounts and website.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.  GEORGE ORWELL / SELWYN DUKE

Supporting Family First NZ. Carol Sakey

https://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hate-Speech-Fact-Sheet.pdf

In December 2020, the report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 made a number of recommendations to improve existing laws relating to hate speech.

In the previous year, the Commission researched and published a resource on the legal framework governing hate speech – Kōrero Whakamauāhara: Hate Speech. The resource includes definitions of hate speech and outlines the legal framework in New Zealand and in similar overseas jurisdictions.

In addition, during September and October 2019, the Commission arranged and facilitated engagements for communities who had experienced, or were at risk of experiencing, hate speech. These engagements helped to inform the Commission’s approach to hate speech.

New Zealand currently has no comprehensive hate speech laws. The closest are provisions within section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 which prohibit incitement of racial disharmony.

These make it a criminal offence for a person to publicly use language which is “threatening, abusive, or insulting” to a group of people on the basis of their “colour, race, or ethnic or national origins”, and which is intended to “excite hostility or ill will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule” that group.

This is punishable by a fine of up to NZ$7,000 or up to three months imprisonment.

What the proposed reforms would do

As part of its broader recommendations to promote social cohesion, the royal commission suggested some reasonably narrow changes to the existing Human Rights Act provisions:

  • add incitement of disharmony on the basis of religion
  • move the criminal offence to the Crimes Act 1961 and increase the penalty
  • tighten the definitions within the provision.

The proposals in the cabinet paper would do all this, specifically increasing the punishment to a fine of up to $50,000 or maximum of three years imprisonment. This would put hate speech punishment in the same general league as making a false declaration or assault with intent to injure.

The language would also be revised to make it an offence to intentionally “stir up, maintain, or normalise hatred” against a nominated group through “threatening, abusive, or insulting communications, including inciting violence”.

This is narrower than the existing law, meaning speech intended to bring a group into “contempt or ridicule” would no longer be covered.

The cabinet paper goes significantly further than the royal commission is in its recommendation the new law be extended beyond race and religion to cover all categories protected under section 21 of the Human Rights Act. These include age, sex, disability, religion, race, sexual orientation, political opinion and a number of others.

The paper also proposes a similar expansion of the civil provision in the Human Rights Act (largely ignored by the royal commission), and adding a prohibition on incitement of discrimination.

It also proposes clarifying the grounds of discrimination to specifically include gender identity and sex characteristics.

A risk of over-reach: By and large, this is a measured proposal. The threshold for criminal liability is very high, requiring a high degree of animosity and an effect far beyond offending an individual.  Despite some claims to the contrary, the proposed laws would not cover (for example) the unkindness and rudeness implicit in casually mis-gendering a trans person.

But by including every ground of discrimination under section 21 of the Human Rights Act, there is some risk the proposed changes become overly broad. In particular, political opinion is an area in which robust, even hostile, debate is important, and there is potential for a “chilling effect”.

Reasonable people may well disagree on this and other aspects of the proposal. But at this stage the cabinet paper is just that — a set of proposals. A more detailed discussion document will be put out for public consultation. One would hope it will include a more precise draft of the proposed legislation.

Hate speech regulation is a fraught topic with important considerations on all sides. It deserves serious consideration and public debate before these proposals finally become law.

https://theconversation.com/nzs-hate-speech-proposals-need-more-detail-and-wider-debate-before-they-become-law-159320

 

 

...

WHAT IS CONVERSION THERAPY?

I am an avid follower and supporter  of Family First New Zealand, therefore I am sharing information from their public domain of free handouts. The following being on Conversion Therapy.

http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Conversion-Therapy-1-1.pdf

WHAT IS ‘CONVERSION THERAPY’ The term ‘conversion therapy’ has been coined by activists but not clearly defined – so the rest of us are left trying to work out what it means. If it means practices which are coercive, abusive orinvoluntary, or includes things like electric shock therapy or ‘anti-gay boot camps’, then we can all agree such things are inhumane and must be condemned. These types of ‘therapy’ should not be part of any community, let alone a faith-based one. Therapy or counselling should never be forced on anyone. Sadly, in the past, many state institutions sanctioned inhumane treatments such as electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)2 , being stripped naked and being locked in a small room3 , massive doses of medication, lobotomies and screaming patients chained to chairs4 . Fortunately, these are not part of current practice and certainly not part of any religious organisation. However, banning ‘conversion therapy’ has expanded to mean stopping someone who experiences unwanted samesex attraction or gender dysphoria from getting counselling or support of any sort that they may themselves desire. In passing the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Act 2022, Parliament has effectively criminalised the discussion and practice of alternatives to hormones, surgery and confusion for gender dysphoria – and more troubling, they have criminalised self-determination of how a person wants to live their own life. The definition of “conversion practice” in section 5 of the Act states:

CONVERION PRACTICES PROHIBITION ACT 2022. 5 Meaning of conversion practice (1) In this Act, conversion practice means any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that- (a) is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression; and (b) is done with the intention of changing or suppressing the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. (2) However, conversion practice does not include— (a) any action that a health practitioner takes when providing a health service if the health practitioner— (i) considers in their reasonable professional judgement it is appropriate to take that action; and (ii) complies with all legal, professional, and ethical standards when taking the action; or (b) assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition; or (c) assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or (d) providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or (e) facilitating an individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual; or (f) the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Examples of conversion practices The following are examples of a conversion practice if each practice, sustained effort, or treatment described is directed towards an individual because of that individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression: • using shame or coercion intending to give an individual an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour: • encouraging an individual to believe that their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression needs changing because it is a defect or disorder: • carrying out a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice, or an exorcism intending to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. (our emphasis added) In the Select Committee report6 which was accepted by Parliament, it said: The definition of conversion practice does not explicitly state whether it would cover both one off and cumulative practices. We believe that the definition should cover both, as harm can be caused by one-off acts as well as by cumulative practices.” This adjustment to the definition was subsequently made. This has expanded the possibility of a parent, youth worker or pastor being caught. A simple one-off discussion could be caught – as could a weekly bible study on sex and gender

Prayer is specifically included as a ‘conversion’ practice – even when requested by the person.(see further discussion below) Ironically, the Committee also said: “We disagree that gender-affirming care or supporting a gender transition could be classified as conversion practices.” It appears that conversion therapy is still legal. As long as you’re converting someone to homosexuality or to be transgender, that will still be supported and endorsed by Parliament. Note that in the law, “assisting” someone to undergo a “gender transition” is acceptable, but to “encourage gender conforming behaviour” (i.e. seeking to live comfortably in one’s natal sex) is not acceptable. As long as you are going in the direction dictated by the activists, that’s okay – which reveals to us all what the real agenda of this legislation is.

CRIMINALISING PARENTS & FAMILIES Under the law, parents could be criminalised and liable to up to five years imprisonments imply for affirming that their sons are boys and their daughters are girls! The law could criminalise the actions of parents who wish to protect their child from the physical, emotional and psychological harm caused by attempting to change their biological sex. A parent who promotes biological sex could be criminalised, but an activist who indoctrinates young children with the concept of ‘gender fluidity’ and ‘third (or 112th) gender’ will be celebrated. Affirming biological sex could be illegal; affirming ‘gender identity’ remains legal. This is not loving or compassionate towards children. Numerous reviews show the majority of children who are confused about their gender also suffer from diagnosed psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety. A mother who encourages and helps her 12-year-old daughter to accept the body she was born with, rather than being placed on dangerous puberty blockers and wearing chest binders, could be committing a criminal offence. Can Dad even gently discourage his nine-year-old son from demands that his father refer to him with female pronouns and allow him to use the girls’ public toilets? Just recently, the UK’s Tavistock transgender clinic was shut down by the NHS after a review found it is not a “safe or viable option” for children, and that there is insufficient evidence to recommend puberty blockers.7 The closing of the Tavistock Clinic came at the same time as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the US issued a warning label about the risk of puberty blockers after six minors (ages 5-12) experienced severe symptoms, including tumor-like masses in the brain, visual disturbances, swelling of the optic nerve, increased blood pressure, and eye paralysis. Medical professionals and groups around the world – including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) – are sounding growing concern and caution around the use of puberty blockers to treat young people with gender dysphoria because of the low certainty of benefits, but the significant potential for medical harm.8 Sweden, Finland, France and the UK have all recently moved away from the Gender Affirmative Model.

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …There were a number of SOPs [amendments] introduced by National and Act proposing certain explicit examples of further actions that were not “conversion practices”, such as an expression of opinion or conversations between a parent and their child, but these were voted down by a majority of members. The Labour party’s view in rejecting these SOPs was that the definition of “conversion practice” set a high threshold and that the Bill was not intended to capture conversations, explorations of views or expressions of opinions. But that is not consistent with the wording of section 5(1) where certain conversations could be “conversion practices” under the definition in the Act. (our emphasis added)

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ5 …The terms sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression are not defined in the Act. …There is greatest certainty for health practitioners… There is significantly less certainty for parents, religious groups and counsellors in ensuring their conversations and actions avoid being classified as “conversion practices”. These persons would have to rely on their actions either not being directed at an individual because of their sexuality or gender, not being intended to change or suppress their sexuality or gender, or falling under one of the exceptions in section 5(2)(b)-(f). (our emphasis added)

Complaints can also be made to the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Human Rights Review Tribunal – which will also have a chilling effect. In fact, at the beginning of August 2022, the HRC started ‘marketing’ their “new support service for reports of conversion practice.” 9 (see further discussion below)

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …Health practitioners and counsellors are likely to be arm’s length from “the individual” in a way that parents, other family and friends may not be. This lack of distance increases the risk of overstepping the demarcation line between actions or conversations that are permissible and actions or conversations that are not. The closer a person is to the individual in question and the more their interests are invested in what happens to the individual, the harder it may be for those people to be neutral in their conversation and actions and to leave the choice to the individual. In particular, a parent certainly has a greater interest in what happens to their own child than a health practitioner, counsellor or even a religious group/ leader. A parent may also have greater influence (positive or negative) over a child than a health practitioner, counsellor or religious leader.

…There is significantly less certainty for parents, religious groups and counsellors in ensuring their conversations and actions avoid being classified as “conversion practices”. These persons would have to rely on their actions either not being directed at an individual because of their sexuality or gender, not being intended to change or suppress their sexuality or gender, or falling under one of the exceptions in section 5(2)(b)-(f). There are circumstances where there is greater risk of a person’s actions being interpreted as a conversion practice – for example, a conversation between a parent who holds religious beliefs that certain forms of sexual orientation or gender expression are wrong or sinful and their child who has made a decision to live in opposition to those beliefs. In these circumstances the parent could attempt to argue that they were only expressing their beliefs or religious principles (in relying on the exception in section 5(2)(f)), but there is a legal risk that this expression could be found to be intended to change or suppress their child’s sexuality or gender.

Conversations that are more in the nature of confronting or rejecting, than supporting and assisting, an individual’s sexuality or gender run the risk of being interpreted as a “conversion practice”, as they would be directed towards the individual and could be intended to change or suppress their sexuality or gender

There are significant consequences of these criminal offences especially in circumstances where a prosecution is being brought against a parent for a conversion practice performed on their child. In that case, evidence will need to be brought by both the parent and child and potentially other family members as to the events that occurred to determine whether they meet the definition of a “conversion practice” as set out above. This has the potential to effectively tear a family apart as family members are forced to pick sides and act as witnesses on opposing sides of a criminal prosecution.

Puberty Blockers- If a parent was to refuse medical consent for their child to go on puberty blockers, this would likely not, on its own, be held constitute a “conversion practice” under the Act… While withholding consent may not, on its own, constitute a conversion practice, the conversation between parent and child surrounding this refusal could potentially constitute a conversion practice, for instance if the parent indicates to the child that the reason for the refusal is their belief that their child’s gender identity is a defect or disorder and encourages the child to believe the same (as this is an example of a conversion practice given in the Act).

Chest Binders A parent taking actions or steps to prevent a child from dressing in the way they want to – regardless of whether this is particular clothing (dresses, skirts) or up to and including chest binders – could be interpreted as a practice that is intended to change or suppress their child’s gender identity/expression and therefore be held to be a conversion practice. It depends on the specific facts and whether the actions are accompanied by a conversation which exacerbates the risk.

“Isn’t the current ‘transitioning’ of a child to an alternate gender just another form of ‘conversion therapy’, using the old and abhorrent means of psychological pressure, hormones and surgery?” Australian paediatrician Dr John Whitehall

Refusal to allow child to identify as the opposite sex The question is whether those conversations or actions constitute an attempt to change or suppress the child’s gender identity/expression. An attempt to control or limit a child’s expression of their gender through active intervention (stopping them from doing certain things or dressing in a certain way) would be likely to be a “conversion practice”

Refusal to use pronouns other than biological sex pronouns A refusal to use preferred pronouns could be a conversion practice if it was not an omission but rather accompanied by an act or conversation of saying to the child “that’s ridiculous” or “I won’t because that is not what you are”. Such words could evidence an intention to change or suppress their gender identity/expression. If the parent consistently refers to their child by a previous name or biological pronouns – this could at some point amount to a practice that is done with the intention of changing or suppressing their gender identity/expression. I advise that the demarcation line between confronting and rejecting and intending to change or suppress a child’s gender identity/expression is a legally risky one for parents to draw and caution against entering into any conversations which are confronting and rejecting.

Encouraging recognition and acceptance of biological sex Active steps taken by a parent to ‘encourage’ recognition and acceptance of biological sex and discourage any change in sex/gender would likely be a conversion practice. This is because it would constitute a practice, sustained effort or treatment directed at the child because of their gender identity/expression with the intent of changing or suppressing their stated gender identity/expression. Depending on the nature of the ‘encouragement’ it may fall within the first of the example conversion practices in section 5: “using shame or coercion … to encourage gender conforming behaviour”. (our emphasis added)

CRIMINALISING COUNSELLORS, CARERS & TEACHERS Under the new law, it could be illegal for a counsellor, spiritual leader, pastor, youth worker, teacher or other professional to counsel a child or adult with gender dysphoria in a way that affirms biology. They could be liable to up to five years imprisonment. If a young person, for example, wanted to align their sexuality with the teachings and values of their particular faith – be it Muslim or Christian, Jewish or Sikh, etc – and sought help to do so from a minister or faith leader, the law makes it virtually impossible to access the support they wanted. Furthermore, if they were able to find someone prepared to provide counselling of that kind, they could well cause that person to become implicated in a criminal offence. Even an ethical discussion of this risk with a counsellor, faith leader or youth worker could be interpreted by the patient, and the law, as ‘trying to stop you (“changing or suppressing” as termed in the law) being trans or gay’.

As warned earlier, prayer as part of counselling or within the setting of a religious meeting could fall inside the concept of ‘conversion therapy’. Thus, if a church minister, imam or youth leader were to pray for a teenager to be freed from unwanted sexual thoughts or gender confusion, this could be interpreted as constituting a criminal offence. It may therefore become dangerous for a child or adult to express confusion over their sexuality or gender. No-one would be able to legally protect them from the gender-transitioning protocols that are backed by the Parliament and radical gender activists, but which are increasingly being challenged by health professionals and medical groups around the world

One-on-one counselling to help a teen struggling with body image due to anorexia would be permitted, but the very same counselling would be prohibited if the goal is to help a teen struggling with body image due to gender dysphoria.

Refusal to allow child to identify as the opposite sex The question is whether those conversations or actions constitute an attempt to change or suppress the child’s gender identity/expression. An attempt to control or limit a child’s expression of their gender through active intervention (stopping them from doing certain things or dressing in a certain way) would be likely to be a “conversion practice”. Refusal to use pronouns other than biological sex pronouns A refusal to use preferred pronouns could be a conversion practice if it was not an omission but rather accompanied by an act or conversation of saying to the child “that’s ridiculous” or “I won’t because that is not what you are”. Such words could evidence an intention to change or suppress their gender identity/expression. If the parent consistently refers to their child by a previous name or biological pronouns – this could at some point amount to a practice that is done with the intention of changing or suppressing their gender identity/expression.

I advise that the demarcation line between confronting and rejecting and intending to change or suppress a child’s gender identity/expression is a legally risky one for parents to draw and caution against entering into any conversations which are confronting and rejecting. Encouraging recognition and acceptance of biological sex Active steps taken by a parent to ‘encourage’ recognition and acceptance of biological sex and discourage any change in sex/gender would likely be a conversion practice. This is because it would constitute a practice, sustained effort or treatment directed at the child because of their gender identity/expression with the intent of changing or suppressing their stated gender identity/expression. Depending on the nature of the ‘encouragement’ it may fall within the first of the example conversion practices in section 5: “using shame or coercion … to encourage gender conforming behaviour”. (our emphasis added)

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …Section 5(2)(f) says “the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” is not a conversion practice. There is, however, no explicit provision to allow a person to carry out the wishes of an individual who may (due to their religious beliefs) want, and therefore consent, to conversion therapy being performed on them.

…Teaching given from the pulpit such as a sermon or even discussion in a small group generally would not be “directed towards an individual”, it would be directed towards a wider group… If one on one discussions or interactions in a small group focused on an individual’s sexuality or gender, this could be found to be a “conversion practice”. The context of a small group heightens the risk of conversations or actions being found to be conversion practices given that the members are more likely to know each other well and speak one to one, so the possibility of a statement being directed at an individual or intended to change or suppress their sexuality or gender is higher (when compared to a pastor giving a sermon to the whole congregation)

This distinction between an expression of a religious opinion that is intended to change or suppress and one that is not intended to change or suppress is easy to describe in the abstract but in practice it will be difficult to demarcate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable expressions of religious belief / opinion under the Act…

… Opinions / religious beliefs strongly expressed to a child may be perceived by them as intended to change or suppress their sexuality or gender. At the very least this would then be unlawful at civil law, even if the criminal standard of reasonable doubt could not be met.

..The Act also amends the HRA to include civil liability and remedies, making it unlawful for any person to perform a conversion practice on any other person or arrange for a conversion practice to be performed on any other person. Where a conversion practice is performed on an individual who is over 18, does not lack decision making capacity and no serious harm is caused there would be no criminal offence committed and therefore no risk of criminal prosecution. However, the action would still be unlawful under this provision, and so the person performing the conversion practice would open themselves up to a complaint being made against them under new section 63A the HRA. This could still have serious consequences, including a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, civil proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and the award of damages. (our emphasis added)

CRIMINALISING FAITH-BASED SCHOOLS & PLACES OF WORSHIP Islamic and Christian schools could be breaking the law for teaching their students that Allah/God made us male and female. Church leaders, youth workers and imams could become criminals for reading and explaining the Quran or the Bible – that is, for doing their job – if the student believes their identity is being ‘changed or suppressed’.

If you’re a spiritual leader and someone says to you, “I’m struggling with my sexuality and gender identity, please pray for me,” you may be being asked to commit a crime.

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …Prayer or counselling with the intention of changing/ suppressing sexuality or gender (for example, dealing with sexual thoughts towards the same sex or encouraging acceptance of biological sex) would be very likely to be found to be a conversion practice. …Indeed one of the example conversion practices provided in the Act is carrying out a prayer-based practice directed toward an individual because of their gender or sexuality, and intending to change or suppress their gender or sexuality. …This distinction between an expression of a religious opinion that is intended to change or suppress and one that is not intended to change or suppress is easy to describe in the abstract but in practice it will be difficult to demarcate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable expressions of religious belief / opinion under the Act… Opinions / religious beliefs strongly expressed to a child may be perceived by them as intended to change or supress their sexuality or gender. At the very least this would then be unlawful at civil law, even if the criminal standard of reasonable doubt could not be met. (our emphasis added)

CRIMINALISING CONSENT Incredibly, the new law says that “consent” is irrelevant. Apparently, the mantra “my body my choice” doesn’t apply here. The right of self-determination is a founding principle of the mental health profession, and for children, the wider whanau/ family is part of this important value and support base.

To restrict the ability to give or receive counselling, teaching, prayer, group discussion and guidance on important personal issues like sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression would constitute a serious interference with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA)

Those who dare to seek inner freedom and healing from unwanted behavioural or thought patterns will have nowhere to turn as a result of this new ban. The law oppresses and violates the right to seek whatever lifestyle you desire.

Convincing people that they are a different gender to their biological sex is not considered ‘conversion therapy’. Nor is it considered ‘conversion therapy’ to encourage a person to explore and develop same-sex attraction. But if a samesex attracted individual wishes to explore and strengthen a heterosexual attraction or lifestyle, or a person wishes to align with their biological sex, it would be illegal – subject to imprisonment – to encourage them to do so under this law

Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …Consent is not a defence under the Act. Even if it was, this could still lead to prosecution in circumstances where a person originally sought out the conversion practice and asked for it to be performed and liked the outcome, but later changed their mind and realised it had caused them serious harm. (our emphasis added)

While there is greatest certainty for health practitioners, the exception is based on taking action they consider appropriate “in their reasonable professional judgement”, and “complies with all legal, professional and ethical standards when taking the action.” In our view, that is the Trojan horse. The Ministry of Health and the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (PATHA) endorse the ‘Guidelines for Gender Affirming Health Care..’11 PATHA is an activist group based out of Waikato University who want compulsory training of medical professionals to support children who want to change their sex, and who promote puberty blockers, chest binding, voice reconstruction, genital surgery etc.

“Affirming” is code for persuading young people that they were ‘born in the wrong body’ and that it will be beneficial for them to cut off their breasts or penises, bind their chest, take cross sex hormones, block the natural progression of puberty, and potentially destroy their fertility.

The alternative is ‘watchful waiting’, which is accompanied by counselling and support, and is based on research which shows that the overwhelming majority of children grow out of their gender dysphoria after puberty. It helps the young person feel comfortable in their natal sex and deals with the comorbid psychiatric disorders that may exist and which are contributing to the gender dysphoria.

While “affirming health care” is currently a ‘guideline’, there is no guarantee that it couldn’t become a “legal, professional and ethical standard” as termed in the law, and encouraging ‘watchful waiting’ will be treated as a form of conversion therapy

NZ BILL OF RIGHTS ACT: DO YOU STILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS?… THIS IS WHAT OUR EXPERTS SAY:- Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …The provisions of the Act potentially infringe on key rights which are protected in NZBORA, including: a. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (section 13) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference. b. Freedom of expression (section 14)

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. c. Manifestation of religion and belief (section 15) Every person has the right to manifest that person’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private. d. Rights of minorities (section 20) A person who belongs to an ethnic, religious, or linguistic minority in New Zealand shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of that minority, to enjoy the culture, to profess and practice the religion, or to use the language, of that minority.

Under section 5 of NZBORA the rights and freedoms it sets out can only be subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. It is possible that the following circumstances may step beyond what are justified limits on these rights in certain circumstances and not allow adequate scope for these rights to operate: a. Effectively criminalising conversations between parents and children such that parents will not be able to share/impart their views, religious or otherwise, without being found to have performed a conversion practice on their children – breaching section 13, 14 and 15 rights.

Parents should be entitled to impart information and opinions to their children especially in complex and difficult scenarios such as those addressed by the Act; and b. Preventing a person with concerns about their sexuality or gender due to their beliefs (religious or otherwise) from obtaining the assistance and support they are seeking to help them live in accordance with those beliefs – breaching section 13 and 15 rights. That person should be able to manifest their belief not only individually but in community with others including through practice and teaching but may be prevented from being able to exercise that right by the Act. These circumstances can also lead to compounding harm to the individuals concerned where at an incredibly difficult and stressful time in their life the Act will mean that they will be unable to obtain the assistance they are seeking from family or a pastor or youth group leader who may have counselled the child throughout their life due to the clear and apparent risk of prosecution. It is also clear that a cultural lens has not been appropriately applied to the provision in the Act. Many cultures have specific views on sexuality and gender which do not appear to have been taken into account. (our emphasis added) NZ BILL OF RIGHTS ACT: DO YOU STILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS? H

SUMMARY All New Zealanders should be protected from coercive, abusive or involuntary psychological or spiritual practices. However, participation in psychological assessments, counselling sessions, prayer meetings and other therapeutic practices is almost always an expression of voluntary behaviour and personal freedom. Under this new law, people would be prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose – if that lifestyle is heterosexual and/or based on their biological sex. And children could not be encouraged to embrace their biological sex. While gender and sexuality is supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve. To penalise people on the basis of their beliefs or personal lifestyle choices lacks fairness and is a dangerous discrimination.

HEALTH PRACTITIONERS Excerpts from Legal Advice received by Family First NZ …The definition of a health practitioner in section 4 of the Act refers to the definition in the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (the HPCAA) which defines the term as a person who is registered with an authority as a practitioner of a particular health profession. Certain authorities are appointed by and under the HPCAA for the various professions, including medicine, nursing, psychotherapy and psychology. A registered member of these regulated professions will be able to rely on the exception in section 5(2)(a), but anyone else such as a parent, religious leader or counsellor will not be able to. (our emphasis added)

SUMMARY All New Zealanders should be protected from coercive, abusive or involuntary psychological or spiritual practices. However, participation in psychological assessments, counselling sessions, prayer meetings and other therapeutic practices is almost always an expression of voluntary behaviour and personal freedom. Under this new law, people would be prevented from getting help to live the lifestyle they choose – if that lifestyle is heterosexual and/or based on their biological sex. And children could not be encouraged to embrace their biological sex. While gender and sexuality is supposedly ‘fluid’, activists want the law to stipulate that it can only go in the direction they approve. To penalise people on the basis of their beliefs or personal lifestyle choices lacks fairness and is a dangerous discrimination.

I encourage those people visiting my website to go to the link I have provided below for further free handouts.

For more information on this issue and to read source documents, visit our official site FreeToLive.nz

http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Conversion-Therapy-1-1.pdf

 

...

NZ GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO ALLOW CHEMICALS, TOXINS, CONTAMINATES, AMMONIA,TOXINS, CONTAMINANTS, NITRATES TO LEACH ITO NZ DRAINS & SEWAGE PLANTS

In making the draft to the Local Government Act 2002,  a major loophole was recognised by the NZ Government. Twenty years of communications, letters, emails to amend the Act, close the loophole have fallen on deaf ears of all political cronies in the tgoilet bowl of Wellington.  RNZ published several acticles about the contaminants, toxins, chemicals leaching into sewers, waste water treatment plants.

 

The Government is entirely intent on using NZ FArmers as their whipping boy. I urge you to support the Farmers in New Zealand. NO FARMERS – NO FOOD.

 

For more information about this please click on the link in the image above, this will take you to my Rumble video.

...