The Clear Agenda of Same-Sex “Marriage” (SSM) Lobbyists

December 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The push for the State sanctioning (legalisation) of same-sex “marriage” (SSM) has followed on from the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Act on 9 July 1986.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act was introduced to the New Zealand parliament by Labour MP Fran Wilde in 1985. It legalised consensual sex between men aged 16 and older. It removed the provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 that criminalised this behaviour.

The case – Quilter v Attorney-General [1998] had its origin in early 1996 when three female couples (lesbians) in long-term relationships were denied marriage licences by the Registrar-General because marriage under the common law was between one man and one woman. The High Court decision rejecting the lesbians’ case of alleged discrimination and inequality, was appealed to the Court of Appeal (then New Zealand’s highest court) in December 1997. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling.

Dissatisfied with this the SSM lobbyists pursued their grievances of alleged “discrimination” to the United Nations. On 30 November 1998, two couples involved in Quilter case took their case to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, claiming that the country’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee rejected it on 17 July 2002.

Again dissatisfied, SSM lobbyists withdrew from all Court action to pursue their goals of SSM “rights” under a different name (“civil union”) via legislative change. On 9 December 2004 Parliament passed the Civil Union Bill, establishing civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Civil Union Act came into effect on 26 April 2005 and the vast majority of the homosexual community applauded it for removing alleged “discrimination” and “inequality”.

However, soon they became dissatisfied with Civil Unions with SSM lobbyists alleging that they were still discriminated against because they could still not obtain a marriage licence. Their clear agenda was to achieve SSM by using parliament to introduce into the Marriage Act a definition of marriage that did not limit it to a male-female union but widened it to include same-sex unions.

In August 2012, Louisa Wall – an openly lesbian Labour MP – spoke in parliament in support of her private member’s bill at First Reading – The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill –  currently being considered by the Government Administration Committee.  It removes all gender specific language from Schedule 2 (“Forbidden Marriages”) of the Marriage Act, but retains the terms “legal wife” and “legal husband” in s. 31 dealing with marriage vows taken before a marriage celebrant. It is due to be reported back to parliament from the committee on 28 February 2013.

SUMMARY: The Clear Agenda of the Homosexual SSM Lobbyists:      

(What’s Next? !)

First: To ensure that same-sex couples can legally obtain a marriage licence and that homosexual men and lesbian women in such relationships can legally refer to their same-sex partner  by the appellation “legal husband” and “legal wife”.

Second: Once parliament has legally sanctioned the oxymoron “same-sex marriage” and legally validated these oxymoronic appelations, such as “legal wife” – to apply to SSM; SSM Lobbyists believe they will have the same “rights” as a heterosexual couples to jointly adopt children because the new law will treat them as “spouses”. At present The Adoption Act 1955 only allows for an adoption order to be applied for by “2 spouses jointly in respect of a child” or “by the mother or father of the child, either alone or jointly with his or her spouse”. In effect the SSM Lobby want to short-circuit due process (proper consideration of changes to Adoption Laws and the rights of adopted children to have a father (male) and mother (female)). 

Filed Under: Civil Unions, Homosexuality, Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Interview with SPCS director on Marriage Amendment Bill

November 27, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Listen to the Executive Director of SPCS being interviewed on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill on Radio Rhema. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Marriage, Political Advocacy, Sexual Dysfunction, Sexuality Tagged With: , , , ,

Greenpeace allowed to reapply for charity status with Department of Internal Affairs

November 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment

GREENPEACE is to be allowed to reapply for charity status with the Department of Internal Affairs [DIA has now taken over the role of the Charities Commission which was recently disestablished]

The environmental  lobby group had applied to be a charity in 2008, but the Charities Commission rejected  its application on the grounds that two of its objectives were political,  and not charitable.

The commission had also said that Greenpeace might be involved in  illegal activities, like trespassing, which could not be charitable.

After  an appeal to the High Court, Justice Paul Heath agreed that Greenpeace  should not be registered but made no ruling on any illegal actions. Greenpeace then took the case to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal today ruled that the object of promoting peace  through nuclear disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass  destruction was a charitable purpose.

The Court of Appeal concluded  that the public benefit of nuclear disarmament and the elimination of  all weapons of mass destruction is now sufficiently well-accepted in New  Zealand society that the promotion of peace through these means should  be recognised in its own right as a charitable purpose.

During the Court of Appeal hearing Greenpeace indicated it would look at  making changes to its objectives, such as changing its rules to limit  political advocacy to activities that furthered its charitable objects.

Greenpeace’s application is to be sent back to be re-considered with the changes in place.

The Charities Commission has since been disestablished and the group’s  application will now go to the Internal Affairs Department chief  executive and the Charities Registration Board, which still has to decide  whether Greenpeace’s political activities are ancillary to its  charitable purposes.

The court said the board would also have to consider whether under the changed rules Greenpeace was involved in illegal activities or is likely  to be involved them in the future.

Greenpeace executive director Bunny McDiarmid said the group was “delighted the Court of Appeal recognised that promoting peace and nuclear disarmament was for the public benefit”. She said today’s ruling provided more clarity on what it meant to  be a charitable organisation promoting causes such as peace and nuclear  disarmament in the 21st century. “We will always remain non-party political promoting good environmental outcomes supported by nearly 60,000 Kiwis.”

Source: Greenpeace allowed to reapply as charity. Stuff News. 16/11/12

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7960488/Greenpeace-allowed-to-reapply-as-charity

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , ,

SAFE – Save Animals from Exploitation (a registered charity) demands ban on rodeo “animal abuse industry”

October 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Save Animals From Exploitation (S.A.F.E.), a registered charity (Reg. No CC40428) with the Charities Commission, is an “animal rights activist”/political advocacy lobby group demanding law changes to safeguard animals from claimed abuse. As part of their “animal advocacy” crusades, SAFE charity workers have used tactics such as flamboyant and high profile publicity stunts, harrassment of business enterprises and their employees and patrons, civil disobedience and civil disruption.

Fairfax Media reports today that SAFE executive director Hans Kriek has described the government’s rodeo code as “complete nonsense” and rodeos as “essentially an animal abuse industry”. SAFE is demanding government legislate for a complete ban on the sport nationwide.

The 2003 Rodeo Code of Welfare, which sets the minimum standards of care and best practice for rodeos, is under review and Kriek has stated:

“We see no point at all in the review of the code. We will make it clear to the Government that it is time to ban rodeos. Every single animal rights organisation is against rodeos.”

However, Canterbury Vets owner Steve Williams and Canterbury SPCS manager Geoff Sutton disputed this claim at the Methven Rodeo yesterday.

Mr Williams, who vetted every animal at the ground yesterday, said organisers went above and beyond the current code of practice. He does not allow animals to compete if they are not up to the task.

Safe Campaign Manager Mandy Carter, stated in a media release dated 19 April 2012:

“Rodeos are merely a cruel display of man’s dominance and abuse of animals. These animals are forced to endure needless suffering and gross mistreatment, all for the sake of so-called entertainment. There is simply no excuse”.

As part of its political advocacy campaign, SAFE is demanding that government establish a Commissioner for Animals, a new office outside the Ministry for Primary Industries, which could independently represent animal welfare.

SAFE, which describes itself as “the leading animal advocacy group”, received $691,268 from public charity (tax-deductible) donations in the financial year ended 31 March 2011. It spent $589,430 – on paying the salaries and wages of nine full-time and five part-time staff charity workers.  Its financial accounts for the year ended 31 March 2012, that were due on 30 September 2012, are overdue and yet to be filed with the Charities Commission.

References:

1. Ban rodeos, activist says. By Charlie Mann. 22 October 2012.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7845946/Ban-rodeos-activist-says

2. Charities Commission website. www.charities.govt.nz

3. SAFE Media Release 19 April 2012.

Animal Advocacy Group Angered at Rodeo Inaction

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1204/S00441/animal-advocacy-group-angered-at-rodeo-inaction.htm

4. SAFE Media Release 21 August 2012

Government urged to make high animal welfare standards a reality

http://www.safe.org.nz/images.php?oid=16798

5.  SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) – a registered charity & its “political advocacy”

http://www.spcs.org.nz/wp-admin/post.php?post=4078&action=edit

6. http://www.spcs.org.nz/wp-admin/post.php?post=3446&action=edit

7. http://www.spcs.org.nz/wp-admin/post.php?post=3497&action=edit

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , ,

“The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” – a lobby group and registered charity and its “political advocacy”

August 21, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“Veganz: the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust“, was incorporated on 31 July 2002 as a charitable trust. But was it ever registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on 15 September 2010 (Charity Reg. No. CC45333), under another name: “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” (an unincorporated Trust formed on 1 May 2010)?

There has never actually been any incorporated entity by the name “The Vegan Society of Aotearoa” in New Zealand and yet it is now a registered charity – registered on 15 September 2010 (Charity Reg. No. CC45333).

Under the Charities Act 2005 all entities registered as charities by the Charities Commission must be registered under their correct legal name if they are a legal entity such as an incorporated charitable trust.

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa is not an incorporated  entity and it was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission under this name, which is permitted under section 15 (e) of the Charities Act 2005.

The “aims and objectives of the the Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust (“Veganz), an incorporated body, are set out  in section 3 of its five-page Trust Deed dated 14 December 2004 and include the following:

3.1 To offer support and information to people interested in veganism in order to assist vegans and others to maintain a healthy, balanced diet.

3.2 To promote and increase the awareness of veganism as a compassionate, healthy and environmentally beneficial lifestyle choice.

3.3. To raise awareness of the cruelty and exploitation involved with the production of animal based products and that it is unnecessary to inflict suffering and death on animals in order to lead to healthy and happy life.

3.4 To research information relevant to a vegan lifestyle and where appropriate to publish this information.

3.5 To lobby for manufacturers to use non-animal based materials in their products.

3.6 To support ethical alternatives to animal based and/or environmentally harmful research and production and when appropriate to lobby governmental and non-governmental bodies to change such practices.

3.7 Promote respect and compassion towards all animals and he environment by appropriate means.

3.8 To develop and maintain positive relationships with organisations with similar aims and objectives, and to offer such organisations support where appropriate.

In 2010 the Charities Commission approved “charitable status” to the unincorporated “Trust” (The Vegan Society of Aotearoa) which has clear links to the political “lobby” group – VEGANZ: The Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust, as defined by the latter’s two “aims and objectives” (3.5 & 3.6).

S. 3.6 clearly states that the targets of Veganz lobbying crusades to be “governmental and non-governmental bodies to change such practices [as] animal based/ or environmentally harmful research and production”.

When the Charities Commission granted The Vegan Society of Aotearoa charity status, it effectively affirmed this object (s. 3.6) as a  “charitable” – lobbying against almost every “animal based …. research and production” activity involved in our primary production sector, as well as any and every other research activity that Veganz judge to be “environmentally harmful”.

The means of changing the harmful, and “morally wrong practices” specified by Veganz, based on their activities, entail campaigns lobbying for law and policy changes (“political advocacy”).

The Vegan Society of Aotearoa, a registered charity, has as one of its “charitable purposes” – To “take action consistent with … promot[ing] veganism as an environentally, friendly, healthy and compassionate way of life.”

Society members under the cover of this apparently innocuous “charitable purpose” are in effect free to pursue all the objects set out in the Veganz Charitable Trust Deed – as they too promote veganism.

Veganz has been committed to a clearly defined political agenda since its incorporation. This involves lobbying “manufacturers” (s. 3.5), “government and non-government bodies” (s. 3.6) so that certain laws and policies relating to animal treatment and welfare can be changed and substituted with ones that are approved by Veganz members and the wider “animal rights” campaign networks, a number of which are also registered charities (e.g. SAFE – Save Animals From Exploitation).

A founding trustee of The Vegan Society of Aotearoa, Ms Amand Sorrenson, is currently Promotions Manager for SAFE (Save Animals from Extinction), an “animal rights” campaigner/lobby heavily involved in “political advocacy”. (See: http://www.safe.org.nz/Contact-Safe/).

Notes:

The charitable trust “Veganz” was incorporated as a Trust on 31 July 2002 (Reg. No. 1230157).

References:

Trust Deed of VEGANZ: The Vegan Society of New Zealand Charitable Trust dated 14 December 2004.

www.charities.govt.nz

www.vegansociety.org.nz

www.vegetarians.co.nz

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Lobbyists with free access to Parliament – Revealed

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Members of one of New Zealand’s most exclusive clubs have finally been revealed – the 15 members of the public with access cards to Parliament have been named by Speaker Lockwood Smith.

As expected, the list includes some of our most influential lobbyists, including former diplomat Charles Finny, Sky TV’s Tony O’Brien and Wellington identities Barrie Saunders and Mark Unsworth, as well as leading unionists Helen Kelly and Peter Conway.

Philippa Falloon, widow of former Cabinet minister John Falloon, and Lady Jane Kidd, wife of former Speaker Doug Kidd, are also on the list.

The Speaker has previously rejected calls to reveal those lobbyists with access cards for Parliament, but agreed to release the list yesterday to coincide with the first reading of a bill sponsored by Green MP Holly Walker calling for greater transparency around lobbyists.

The access card gives holders the right to enter Parliament without passing through the usual security screening and through the public areas.

A spokeswoman said the card did not give the group swipe card access to private areas like the Beehive core, Bowen House or the Speaker’s corridor.

There have long been questions over the level of access to MPs by lobbyists, and elsewhere, including in Australia and the United States, they are required to sign lobbyists’ registers that allow the public to know which lobbyists have been schmoozing a country’s decision-makers.

The Speaker’s decision to make the information transparent will be welcomed – but earlier yesterday Dr Smith was on the wrong side of public opinion, after insisting that he give evidence behind closed doors to a select committee hearing evidence on MPs’ perks and conditions.

Dr Smith’s evidence related to legislation giving an independent authority greater control over perks and follows moves to tighten up the rules around travel.

The legislation is supposed to provide greater transparency around pay and perks.

But after the Government administration committee advertised Dr Smith’s evidence as open to the public, it shut out the media and members of the public.

Prime Minister John Key, who has driven the push for transparency, said he was “surprised” by Dr Smith seeking secrecy and made it clear he was unhappy, given the commitments he had made on MPs’ perks.

“We’re trying to add more transparency to the process.”

THE LIST

Nicholas Albrecht – government relations manager for infrastructure company Vector.

Tim Clarke – law firm Russell McVeagh

Peter Conway – Council of Trade Unions

Helen Kelly – CTU

Daniel Fielding – law firm Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Charles Finny – lobbyists Saunders Unsworth

Barrie Saunders – Saunders Unsworth

Mark Unsworth – Saunders Unsworth

Tony O’Brien – Sky TV

Phil O’Reilly – BusinessNZ

Leigh Pearson – former TVNZ journalist turned lobbyist

Jordan Williams – law firm Franks & Ogilvie

Rasik Ranchord – Parliamentary Breakfast Group

Philippa Falloon – former MP’s widow

Lady Jane Kidd – former MP’s spouse

Source:

The Dominion Post, July 26, 2012, p. 1.

Story by Tracy Watkins

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7349759/Lobbyists-with-free-access-to-Parliament

 

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: ,

Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists

July 26, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Under legislation proposed by Green MP Ms Ms Holly Walker, people who receive pay for lobbying MPs about laws or policies and who fail to register with the Attorney-General as paid lobbyists, could face criminal charges. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill, drawn from the parliamentary ballot on 21 April 2012, seeks to bring transparency to the activities of all paid lobbyists who attempt to sway and influence legislative processes by communicating with MPs. The bill proposes that the Auditor-General be empowered to investigate any alleged breaches of a Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, which all paid lobbyists must agree to and sign, before they can lawfully engage in the lobbying of MPs. The Auditor-General will also be empowered to remove or suspend persons from a Register of Lobbyists if they breach the Code of Conduct.

Ms Walker wants regular statistics to be gathered on all paid lobbyists and the data regularly collated and reviewed, so the public, government officials and a host of enforcement agencies can closely scrutinise all their activities.

If her proposed bill, as drafted, passes into law, charities registered with the Charities Commission, such the the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF), that are heavily engaged in political advocacy and lobbying AND receive significant government funding (see below); will need to have all and every one of their paid lobbyists sign a Lobbyists’ Code of [ethical] Conduct and register their personal details on the Register of Lobbyists.

Failure to do so prior to watching a rugby match from a NZAF-sponsored corporate box, or watching a NZAF-sponsored modelling pageant, alongside any MP or MPs, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation or sexuality; might lead to an unauthorised NZAF lobbyist having criminal charges being laid against him or her. Such unauthorised lobbyists attending a Big Gay Out event or a Hero Parade, who might be photographed or filmed arm-in-arm with an MP, whilst indulging in “political advocacy,” may face the prospect of being charged with criminal activity (lobbying).

Once charged, the NZAF charity worker accused would be required in make a credible defence to the Attorney-General, disclosing the range of presumably “gay” friendly legislative issues discussed with the friendly MP, and the methods used in the lobbying campaign, if any.

Authorised NZAF lobbyists who face charges over alleged breaches of the Code  will have to rely on the official records made of their lobbying encounters as recorded by the friendly MPs as well as their own diary records and any corroborating evidence provided by Big Gay-Out/Hero Parade participants/witnesses.

(NZAF, a registered charity [CC22230], which received $4,112,376 in government funding/contracts, and $342,029 in other grants/sponsorship in the financial year ending 30 June 2011, has “40-something staff throughout the country” according to one NZAF official. No figures have been provided as to how many of these are paid lobbyists. $2,564,846 was spent by NZAF on salaries/wages in 2010/2011. See www.charities.govt.nz ).

The Auditor-General would need to scrutinise the lobbying activities of registered charities like NZAF, if the latter’s paid staff were charged with unlawful lobbying, and refer offending paid charity workers to the police if they breached the new law. The Bill requires a report on any suspended or deregistered paid lobbyist to be reported to Parliament, as well as all investigations of such breaches to be undertaken.

Given that the Auditor-General is an MP, he or she will have to be very, very, careful in all dealings with undercover paid lobbyists, particularly when attending highly-visible social events, if the bill passes into law.

Reference: Lobbying Disclosure Bill. In the name of Green Party MP, Ms Holly Walker.

http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/lobbying-disclosure-bill

Note: The article”Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists” was first published on the SPCS Blog on 13 June 2012

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The unlawful actions of public authorities seeking to stifle “the right to freedom of expression”

July 11, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Society’s sixth object from section 2 of its Constitution deals with the principle of the human “right to freedom of expression” and it was approved as a “charitable purpose” by the New Zealand Charities Commission, when it was registered as a charity on 17 December 2007. (The Commission was disestablished on 1 July 2012 and “Charities” has now been absorbed into the Department of Internal Affairs).

The Society’s Rules (“objects”) state:

2. (f) “To support responsible freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people”.

What is the Society’s rationale and basis for having such an object?

For an answer to this question one needs to look no further than sections 13 & 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 which states:

Section 13: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Section 14: Freedom of Expression

  • 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. [Emphasis added]

The principle of the human “right to freedom of expression” is found in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) signed by member states on 4 November 1950.

ARTICLE 10.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprise.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 (1) focuses on and specifically addresses the unlawful activities of any “public authority” (e.g. a Crown entity) that attempts (whether openly or by stealth) to stifle “free speech”, by means of – for example: limiting and prescribing robust debate, and harassing and victimizing individuals and groups that seek to express a viewpoint that authorities disagree with, or consider too controversial to be aired.

Pandering to the strident and relentless bleatings of certain narrow-minded interest groups, or driven by arguably defective ideologies that authorities consider “politically correct”; such campaigns of harassment by public authorities propel the spirits of these unjust instigators of corruption to their zenith; in the ‘sure knowledge’ that they are doing the work of ‘God’ or His ‘equivalent’ – the Crown Entity or some public authority to which they are dutifully behoven.

In attempting to pander to the relentless litany of complaints from opponents of “free speech”, these quisling operatives within what used to be honourably called “the public service departments”, deviate from the universally held principles set out in Article 10(1) of the ECHR and other equivalent laws and statutes (see below), committing unlawful acts that warrant full exposure before the Courts.

Common sense dictates the principles set out in Article 10(2).

In the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 (“BORA”) which upholds the “right of freedom of expression”, limitations to such “freedom” are set out that are identical to those in 10(2).

BORA states:

  • Section 5: Justified limitations

    • Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

  • Section 6. Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred.
  • Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.

The SPCS has included in its object 2(f) the following check to offensive and unlawful activities that some would seek to justify on the grounds of their “right to freedom of expression”: ….

“…. [that] which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.”

These words act as an effective couterbalance to the “right to freedom of expression” found in BORA. They summarise the responsibilities of citizens to uphold all other relevant enanctments so that in effect any one (and ALL) of their actions, as expressed by SPCS, is limited to one “which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people”.

The SPCS draws its reference to the concept of “injury to the public good” and the effect of “degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people” from section 2 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“FVPCA”, in which “objectionable” content is clearly defined.

The so-called “deeming provisions” found in s. 2(2) of this Act set out the basis upon which content (depicted behaviour in films, books etc) is deemed “objectionable” by the Chief Censor’s Office, and consequently can be banned. Hardcore pornography that degrades, dehumanises and demeans the class of humanity we define as women (based on gender) is regularly banned by the censors. Some porn companies actively seek to import such material that pushes to the limits the boundaries set in law to control such content matter.

Section 6 of BORA in effect ‘trumps’ all other constraints that public authorities may dearly wish to impose on individuals and groups by their appealing to other enactments (e.g. Charity Law) to restrict “freedom of expression”.

Prior to about October 2000, Commissioners of the Charity Commission (England and Wales) were required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was not directly applicable until the Human Rights Act 1988 (HRA) was in force (about October 2000). (see Decision re Church of Scientology [England and Wales]).

It is somewhat ironic that so many charities championing “human rights” and engaging in blatant “political advocacy” in order to advance their messages in England and Wales, could well face the vicious  tourniquet applied by Charity Commissioners, determined to muzzle them from speaking out against the harassment and discrimination of vulnerable minority classes such as Christians.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is embodied in section 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

There will always be those who cannot cope with others expressing sincerely held opinions that differ from their own.

International law is very clear about the rights of any person to declare such opinions or beliefs without interference from others including public authorities.

References:

1. Council of Europe: The European Convention on Human Rights. Rome 4 November 1950

and its Five Protocols

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

2. New Zealand Bill of Rights 1980

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_bill+of+rights_resel_25_h&p=1

Filed Under: Censorship, Enforcement, Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) – a registered charity & its “political advocacy”

June 25, 2012 by 2 Comments

Protest challengers cage egg industry: SAFE – registered charity and political entity: its “perpetual advocacy of a particular view”. TV One 7 AM News reported this morning that animal welfare activists from a registered charity SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation Inc.) and other animal rights lobbyists have mounted a campaign of civil disobedience by blocking the entrance to the Mainland Poultry complex in Waikouaiti, just north of Dunedin, in order to protest against the farming of poultry in colony battery cages.

SAFE issued its Media release to Voxy News at 4.54 am today that alerted media to the protest (see link below). A TV One News crew was at the protest site reading for filming at the crack of dawn today  – thanks to the registered charity SAFE.

The array of lobbyists are demanding that the law be changed to outlaw such farming practices and intend to remain in place infringing the rights of workers and management to enter the complex and go about their lawful business, until they are removed by police. SAFE campaign director Eliot Pryor was part of the ground crew coordinating the blockade of  Mainland Poutry, and was supported by other SAFE members present.

Since it was registered as a charity (CC40428) with the Charities Commission headed by Mr Trevor Garrett, on 30 June 2008, SAFE’s vociferous lobbyists have been engaged in the “perpetual advocacy of a particular point of view”, to use the ‘terminology’ of the Charities Commission’s Monitoring and Investigations Team.    

SAFE’s  financial accounts (available on line on the Charities Commission’s website www.charities.govt.nz), reveal that in the financial year ended 31 March 2011, it employed nine full-time charity workers and 5 part-timers. SAFE records a total annual salary and wages bill of $589,430, for the financial year ended 31 March 2011. This pay-out constituted 61% of the charity’s annual income of $917,315 sourced from donations from the New Zealand public.

Voxy News reports today:

MEDIA RELEASE BY SAFE

Protest challenges cage egg industry

Access to the largest battery cage facility in New Zealand has been blocked today by animal welfare activists protesting against cages for layer hens.

Early this morning eight metre high tripod structures with climbers suspended were set up at the entrance to the Mainland Poultry complex in Waikouaiti and activists from The Coalition to End Factory Farming expect to remain in place until they are forced down.

“The action is being carried out to highlight the continued cruelty of cages,” says SAFE Campaign director Eliot Pryor, “and especially to stop the introduction of the proposed colony battery cage system. Both SAFE and The Coalition to End Factory Farming want to see all cages banned for egg-laying hens. The so-called enriched colony cages are not an acceptable alternative to the existing system as the welfare benefits are so minimal.”

“Mainland Poultry has refused the media access to these new colony battery cages and it is easy to see why,” says Mr Pryor. “They do not want the public to see the abhorrent conditions the animals are forced to live in. They do not want to explain to consumers why hens are crammed inside cages so cramped they have barely any room to move.”

Secretly filmed images of the colony battery cages in the Mainland facility, showing a dark future for New Zealand’s three million battery hens, were revealed by activists on national television earlier this year. The Minister for Primary Industries, David Carter, is considering approving the introduction of colony battery cages as part of the new welfare code for layer hens.

Colony battery cages do not provide the hens with the opportunity to display their normal behaviour as required by the Animal Welfare Act. Both New Zealand and international animal welfare agencies have condemned them, declaring the cages “fail to properly meet the hens’ physical or behavioural needs”.

“The law does not meet the welfare needs of these animals and as the law fails the hens, and producers resist moving to better welfare systems, you will find more reaction from consumers,” says Mr Pryor. “All retailers need to be looking again at their supply chain and asking themselves what their customers would find acceptable.”

Eighty per cent of Kiwis are opposed to battery cages, and SAFE encourages the public not to be fooled into believing that the new colony battery cages are acceptable. Consumers can contact the Minister directly to demand a ban on all cages at nocages.org.nz.

Media Release from Animal rights activist charity SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation).

Voxy News. Monday 25 June 2012

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/protest-challenges-cage-egg-industry/5/127249

Reference: www.nzopenrescue.org.nz ”SAFE campaign director Eliot Pryor was part of the ground crew” [in the blockade of Mainland Poultry]

 

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists

June 13, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Under legislation proposed by Green MP Ms Ms Holly Walker, people who receive pay for lobbying MPs about laws or policies and who fail to register with the Attorney-General as paid lobbyists, could face criminal charges. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill, drawn from the parliamentary ballot on 21 April 2012, seeks to bring transparency to the activities of all paid lobbyists who attempt to sway and influence legislative processes by communicating with MPs. The bill proposes that the Auditor-General be empowered to investigate any alleged breaches of a Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, which all paid lobbyists must agree to and sign, before they can lawfully engage in the lobbying of MPs. The Auditor-General will also be empowered to remove or suspend persons from a Register of Lobbyists if they breach the Code of Conduct.

Ms Walker wants regular statistics to be gathered on all paid lobbyists and the data regularly collated and reviewed, so the public, government officials and a host of enforcement agencies can closely scrutinise all their activities.

If her proposed bill, as drafted, passes into law, charities registered with the Charities Commission, such the the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF), that are heavily engaged in political advocacy and lobbying AND receive significant government funding (see below); will need to have all and every one of their paid lobbyists sign a Lobbyists’ Code of [ethical] Conduct and register their personal details on the Register of Lobbyists.

Failure to do so prior to watching a rugby match from a NZAF-sponsored corporate box, or watching a NZAF-sponsored modelling pageant, alongside any MP or MPs, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation or sexuality; might lead to an unauthorised NZAF lobbyist having criminal charges being laid against him or her. Such unauthorised lobbyists attending a Big Gay Out event or a Hero Parade, who might be photographed or filmed arm-in-arm with an MP, whilst indulging in “political advocacy,” may face the prospect of being charged with criminal activity (lobbying).

Once charged, the NZAF charity worker accused would be required in make a credible defence to the Attorney-General, disclosing the range of presumably “gay” friendly legislative issues discussed with the friendly MP, and the methods used in the lobbying campaign, if any.

Authorised NZAF lobbyists who face charges over alleged breaches of the Code  will have to rely on the official records made of their lobbying encounters as recorded by the friendly MPs as well as their own diary records and any corroborating evidence provided by Big Gay-Out/Hero Parade participants/witnesses.

(NZAF, a registered charity [CC22230], which received $4,112,376 in government funding/contracts, and $342,029 in other grants/sponsorship in the financial year ending 30 June 2011, has “40-something staff throughout the country” according to one NZAF official. No figures have been provided as to how many of these are paid lobbyists. $2,564,846 was spent by NZAF on salaries/wages in 2010/2011. See www.charities.govt.nz ).

The Auditor-General would need to scrutinise the lobbying activities of registered charities like NZAF, if the latter’s paid staff were charged with unlawful lobbying, and refer offending paid charity workers to the police if they breached the new law. The Bill requires a report on any suspended or deregistered paid lobbyist to be reported to Parliament, as well as all investigations of such breaches to be undertaken.

Given that the Auditor-General is an MP, he or she will have to be very, very, careful in all dealings with undercover paid lobbyists, particularly when attending highly-visible social events, if the bill passes into law.

Reference: Lobbying Disclosure Bill. In the name of Green Party MP, Ms Holly Walker.

http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/lobbying-disclosure-bill

Filed Under: Political Advocacy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: