This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: World Vision Contacts Used By Homosexual Law... (Press, 27 April 1985)
In a controversy surrounding the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, World Vision, a Christian relief organisation, faced backlash after it was revealed that a mailing list used by the organisation was provided to campaigners opposing the legislation. A Christchurch woman, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed her anger upon receiving a petition against the bill, stating her support for the law reform and tearing up the petition. She criticised World Vision for sharing her details without her consent, questioning the organisation's practices and wondering who else may have access to their mailing lists. Peter McNee, the executive director of World Vision, acknowledged that a staff member had shared contacts from the organisation's church mailing list after being approached by opponents of the reform. McNee clarified that World Vision maintains two separate mailing lists: one comprising confidential donor information and the other containing church contacts, which he indicated were publicly accessible information. Most individuals on the church contact list were ministers. In light of the complaint from the Christchurch woman, the organisation's directors convened to discuss the matter. Following this meeting, McNee announced a decision to keep names from both mailing lists confidential in the future. He acknowledged the validity of the woman's concerns, noting that sending the petition could have pleased some recipients and upset others. The woman highlighted that her connection to World Vision was through her participation in the group's 40-hour famine initiative aimed at raising awareness of global hunger, as well as her sponsorship of a child overseas. She reiterated that World Vision had no basis to assume her stance on the proposed legal reforms and questioned the appropriateness of distributing the petition using her name. After being informed of where her details originated, she reached out to the petition campaigners for clarification.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand