Residential Brothel Near PM Welcomed

Media Release 16 January 2011
Family First NZ is welcoming news that a residential brothel has started operating in the area where the Prime Minister lives. 

“The dysfunctional laws governing brothels and street prostitution are not going to be tackled by politicians until one of them is directly affected by the negative outcomes of residential brothels. The concerned residents of Parnell should directly lobby the Prime Minister about their concerns,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ  “We have huge sympathy for their plight – but they are not the first.” 

“Accounts of home brothels where men willing to pay for sex are knocking on nearby homes trying to find the brothel, concerns about noise, traffic, and late-night visits experienced by the residents in Cleveland Mews is unfortunately nothing new to many residential streets around New Zealand experiencing similar outcomes from having a brothel next door.” 

“It is a national disgrace that we are exposing our children and families to that level of risk.” 

“The opposition to residential brothels in places such as Greenlane, Albany, North Shore, Mt Victoria in Wellington, concerns about a sex parlour to operate in the same building as a preschool in Wellington and opposite a school in Henderson, attempts by Manukau City Council to tackle the problems of street prostitution in Papatoetoe and Manurewa, and opposition to the brothel in the main street of Dannevirke and Invercargill all show that communities are not accepting the liberalised and harmful laws.” 

“The decriminalisation of prostitution has been a community disaster harming families, businesses, and the welfare of workers caught in the industry. Cities throughout NZ have been trying to deal with the ‘hospital pass’ given by the politicians when they passed this law,” says Mr McCoskrie. 

“Now that John Key has one in his ‘back yard’ it may be the catalyst we urgently need for the politicians fixed the obvious flaws in the law.”
ENDS

Share

5 comments for “Residential Brothel Near PM Welcomed

  1. Nick Kaspers
    15 January 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Bob
    I understand what you are trying to convey here but I do not agree with your opening comments.
    As followers of Christ we should never express satisfaction over the opening of a brothel, where ever it is situated! This will bring about a curse and not bestow a blessing on the message you are delivering.
    I pray the seed will not bear fruit in Jesus name.
    May God bless you and the work you do at Family First.

  2. Chuck Bird
    16 January 2011 at 12:41 am

    “The decriminalisation of prostitution has been a community disaster harming families, businesses, and the welfare of workers caught in the industry.”

    I hope you do not mind a correct Bob. To the best of my knowledge prostitution was not a criminal offence before the law change. Soliciting was.

    There was no need for a law change. If women wanted to work in a brothel that was called a massage parlour they could. If men wanted to use their services they could.

    Do not get me wrong. I strongly objected to the law change for a number of reasons.

  3. Bob
    16 January 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Hi Nick. We welcomed the news – not the brothel. A subtle difference but it captures the media’s attention 🙂 Ultimately – as we say – it’s going to take a politician to experience first hand the problems with residential brothels before we see a response. For a brothel to park right down the road from none other than the PM is welcome news!!

  4. Bob
    16 January 2011 at 10:22 pm

    Prostitution. Soliciting. It’s all the same problem isn’t it?

  5. Chuck Bird
    19 January 2011 at 5:39 pm

    “Prostitution. Soliciting. It’s all the same problem isn’t it?”

    No. Prostitution was legal before the law change – soliciting was not.

    The law change made soliciting legal as well a pimping which was not legal.

    This has made things a lot worse than they were.

    The solution for this as well as other moral legislation is binding referendum with a simple yes no answer whether to approve of reject such legislation.

Comments are closed.