A new sign seems to have popped up between the self-checkouts at a specific Pak’nSave (note that this is after you’ve entered the store, in fact just before you’re going to leave):
It would be a shame if they had to do this because people were challenging their self-given right to unreasonably search customers.
Family First ordered a poll (something they subsequently left out of their press release) on young people’s views on sex and abortion, and apparently most of them agree with Family First.
The poll was conducted by Curia, David Farrar of Kiwiblog’s market research company. The sample size was 600 15 to 21-year-olds from 6,000 nationwide phone numbers.
“Based on this sample of 600 respondents, the maximum sampling error (for a result of 50%) is +/- 4.1%, at the 95% confidence level.”
Of course, it isn’t actually independent at all because Family First got to choose the wording of the question and options.
Do you think sex education in schools should teach values, abstinence and consequences such as pregnancy, or just teach safe sex?
- Values, abstinence and consequences – 34%
- Just safe sex – 19%
- Both – 42%
- Unsure/refuse – 5%
Safe sex gets ‘just’ put in front of it, but values, abstinence and consequences doesn’t. Did the 34% know they were choosing just values, abstinence and consequences?
Chief executive of Family Planning, Jackie Edmond points out that no organization actually advocates safe sex by itself.
Family First’s spin on this result:
“This is a direct rebuke from young people to the ‘use a condom’ and ‘everyone’s doing it’ messages being pushed by groups like Family Planning, AIDS Foundation and Rainbow Youth,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
Except, at least 61% support education involving condoms. And ‘everyone’s doing it’ isn’t a message safe sex groups send.
Provided it won’t put the girl in physical danger, should parents be told if their school-age daughter is pregnant and considering getting an abortion?
- Yes – 59%
- No – 34%
- Unsure/refuse – 7%
Without a crystal ball there’s really no way to be sure that it “won’t put the girl in physical danger”. Why not trust the girl’s own judgment? The question suggests that physical danger is the only significant danger. There’s other considerations to be made. Emotional and financial harm, or being chucked out of home are all significant, but none come under physical danger.
“Parental notification laws in Texas, Michigan, Minnesota, and other US states have seen a drop in both the pregnancy rate and the teen abortion rate – a win-win situation for all concerned.”
I’m guessing that quite a few of these abortions have just moved to states with more liberal abortion laws.
Do you believe an unborn child or foetus has a right to be born?
- Yes – 56%
- No – 28%
- Unsure/refuse – 16%
Slightly more young women than young men agreed – 58% to 55%.
The conclusion based on gender is misleading. Slightly more young women than young men disagreed too, 28% to 27%.
Sex education, parental notification, abortion poll results (doc)
Here is Family First’s article on the results (if anything, you should read it to see the words cock, wank, orgasm and clitoris censored with asterisks).
Image credit: Democracy International
Their reply to “Random” Pak’nSave Bag Searches. No comment on women with handbags or what happens if I did have something in my bag that I had bought from another supermarket.
Dear Matt,
I can confirm that our bag policy is applicable regardless of a customer’s age and is simply designed to prevent an ongoing shoplifting issue which we are trying to manage. We have a prominent sign in-store which clearly states that ‘We reserve the right to check all bags and may require you to leave large bags with a staff member while shopping.’
While I do appreciate having your bag checked is an inconvenience, unfortunately due to the level of shoplifting we experience in-store, it is an unavoidable part of how we are forced to do business, we would certainly prefer to not check customer’s bags but sometimes even with cameras and other security measures we are left with no option. I apologise if you felt you were unfairly treated and I hope you will continue to shop at my store.
My staff remain committed to giving our customers the best possible shopping experience, and by endeavouring to keep shoplifting to a minimum we hope we can deliver the lowest everyday prices.
Kind regards,
Steven McDonald
Owner
PAK’nSAVE Riccarton
Image credit: Naomi
I wrote about the Ministry of Education’s search and seizure guide for schools a couple of months ago, but I missed this article that contains some really disturbing comments from those involved in education. Basically, the police used to assist schools with draconian drug dog and weapon searches of entire schools, but have stopped after their lawyers realized that they’re probably not legal.
“Education Minister Anne Tolley said a law change might be needed, because it was wrong for the rights of one or two pupils to take precedence over the rights of the whole school community.” [emphasis mine]
Because, you know, it’s only the students with drugs and knives that are being protected by making sure searches are reasonable! As Michael Bott points out later in the article, you’re violating the rights of every student when you conduct unreasonable searches en masse.
“Every step has to be taken to prevent [exposure to drugs and weapons].”
An extremely single-minded approach. When do strip searches become a reasonable step?
“Crown Law is also investigating possible law changes to protect teachers from being charged with assault or false imprisonment”.
“They will still help schools with searches but only when there is evidence of pupils carrying weapons or illicit drugs.”
“Secondary Principals Association president Patrick Walsh – principal of John Paul College in Rotorua – said … it was unfortunate that police would now offer searches only if there was “reasonable suspicion that drugs are being peddled at the school”. The searches should continue until their legality was tested in court or ministry lawyers ruled they were unlawful, he said.” [emphasis mine]
What is this I don’t even.
“‘No other New Zealand citizens are subject to the same intrusive search criteria,’ lawyer Michael Bott said.”
Random drug searches of innocent pupils “were ‘deemed OK by virtue of their age and the fact that they’re compelled to attend the school’”.
Hekia Parata is the new Minister of Education, so hopefully she isn’t as ridiculous as Anne Tolley. Though, Anne Tolley becomes the Minister for Police and Corrections, so good luck with that everyone.
Image credit: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Peter D. Lawlor http://www.flickr.com/photos/anhonorablegerman/5722364868/
Update: Pak’nSave responds.
An open letter.
Dear People of Pak’nSave Riccarton,
On 15 December I shopped at Riccarton Pak’nSave with a group of other young people.
After purchasing items at a self-checkout directly in front of one of your staff (really, she was right beside me), she requested to search my bag. I had not touched the bag during my visit so this request was not based on any actual evidence that I had attempted to steal something, like from a store detective or a camera.
It was extremely obvious that this was not a random search, as she called it. It was because of my age. Three other people from our group were selected for a “random” search. I wonder how many women with handbags were searched that day? I know my friend that came through the self-checkout after us wasn’t.
I declined the request.
I waited for the rest of our group and left the store. I was followed by a store manager who put his arm touching up against me, and tried to stop me from leaving. I declined again, which I have the right to do, no matter your signage, and walked away.
It’s disgusting to treat your paying customers like this.
Do you consider that bags contain personal possessions? That most people wouldn’t decline your request to search, because it makes them look and feel like a criminal? That searching personal possessions could reveal, say, a private medical condition?
I wonder what the purpose of these “random” searches are. Say I did consent to the search, I had items in my bag that I didn’t buy or steal from Pak’nSave, but that you sell. I didn’t have the receipt. What would happen then? Would you accuse me of stealing those items? Would you call the police on me? If not, why are you searching young people? Scare tactics? That isn’t the definition of a reasonable search.
If it is your policy to target young people or people with backpacks (read: young people), it needs to change. It is discriminatory and wrong.
If you weren’t the only supermarket at Westfield Riccarton, I wouldn’t shop with you again.
Kind regards
Matt Taylor
Image credit: bfick
Update: Here’s Aliza Eveleigh on bag searches (click for larger version): 