Family First is calling for a lads' mag Zoo Weekly to be banned from Countdown shelves.

But public opinion on the magazine, known for its photoshoots of scantily-clad women and racy content, is divided.

A petition that started in Australia, calling for supermarkets across the ditch to stop stocking men's magazine Zoo, was picked up in New Zealand by Family First on Monday morning. 

MONIQUE FORD/FAIRFAX NZ

Family First is calling for Countdown to follow the Australian example and ban men's magazine Zoo from its shelves. The latest issue features Kiwi Gemma Lee Farrell on the cover.

But a spokesman for Countdown New Zealand said it has "no plans" to remove the publication from its shelves, and that it takes responsible steps when displaying the magazine.

And many members of the public have agreed, saying they don't find the magazine offensive.

Wellington woman Darsh Dorn said she didn't think Zoo should be banned at all.

"[The magazine] seems pretty normal to be honest. It's aiming for a specific target group, and obviously not them. It's freedom of speech and expression."

Amalia Lehmann agreed. "It's for a certain kind of public. I won't read, it but I don't think it should be banned," she said.

Daniel Deans said it was definitely objectifying women but wasn't 'offensive', while others said it was "shocking" and shouldn't be in supermarkets.

Australian supermarket Coles has already pulled the magazine from its shelves.

The petition to drop Zoo from Woolworths, which owns Countdown stores in New Zealand, soon followed, with almost 40,000 people so far calling for its chief executives to "bin Zoo magazine immediately".

Laura Pintur, who started the campaign, said the magazine was being sold next to children's magazines on supermarket stands.

"When I heard Zoo was regularly promoting rape culture and sexism with phrases like 'you want to pick the "loosest/skankiest" one of the lot and fetch her a drink…separate her from the flock'. I couldn't stand by and watch it promoted to kids at supermarkets," she said.

In New Zealand Family First has picked up the baton, calling on Countdown to ban the magazine.

National director Bob McCoskrie said the magazine did not belong on supermarket shelves.

"I think if I showed you it, you see it promotes a rape culture, it objectifies women, teaches boys to be predatory, it's the continued sexualisation of women.

McCoskrie said he would be calling on Family First's support base of 27,000 to start speaking to managers in their local supermarkets about the issue.

"We want to encourage families to politely speak to managers and ask if it's appropriate to make a profit out of these messages," he said.

But a Countdown spokesperson said it was just one of more than 1000 stockists selling the magazine around the country.

The supermarket sells less than a quarter of Zoo magazines in New Zealand, and they were appropriately positioned in store, he said.

"Given the content, the magazine is positioned in the top right tier of the magazine stand in the aisle and is not placed at check outs. At Countdown we do not stock any restricted-age publications."

But McCoskrie didn't accept the response.

"Pointing the finger at everyone else just doesn't wash, they're one of the biggest retailers, they should take some moral leadership."

Family First has recently appeared in the media for calling to have young adult book Into the River to be classified R14, because it contains sex, drugs and swearing.

READ MORE:
* Into the River ban was in 'public interest': Don Mathieson
* Banned book Into the River 'is one of the best teen novels going'
* Amazon removes Into the River ebook
* Into the River ban : Eleanor Catton, John Boyne, John Marsden and more speak out
* Racy teen novel Into the River banned after Family First complaint
* Family First says it didn't intend for racy teen novel Into the River to be banned

The call against Into the River led to the Film and Literature Board of Review putting an interim restriction order on the book until a classification decision is made next month.

McCoskrie said ultimately the group would like Zoo pulled from all retailer's shelves.

"It brings us back to an interesting debate: where is the line between freedom of expression and protection of society?

"We would ask whether [Zoo magazine] serves any merit in society."

"We believe it's harmful to society," he said.

Zoo Weekly was not classified with an age restriction and the Classification Office had not had any complaints about it, a spokesperson of the Office said.

McCoskrie said Family First didn't plan what publications they were going to stand against, it just reacted to complaints from its supporters.

"People who say we're on a banning rampage are probably people with a vested interest in [the magazine]."

Zoo Weekly could not be reached for comment.

* Comments on this story are now closed

Head to our Facebook page for more from Stuff Entertainment

 - Stuff