SPCS written submission on the Marriage Amendment Bill

March 23, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Submission on The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill to

Government Administration Committee

by

Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc.

Conclusion reads:

Parliament has no authority to redefine marriage and should not presume to engineer changes to a natural institution that constitutes the very fabric of society. Marriage is foundational to understanding and expressing the true nature of our humanity comprising the complementarity of the sexes in true union and the procreation of new life issued from that true union. Same-sex couples have the freedom to form meaningful and legally recognised relationships under the Civil Union Act. The concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage by definition involves a man and a woman and its unique and distinctive quality must be preserved, protected and promoted by the State. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill should be rejected. The explanations provided in the Bill for amending the principal Act are legally flawed. Amendments to the Civil Union Act rather than the Marriage Act should be the means by which the GLBT community address their issues of inequality, denial of “rights” and claimed discrimination etc.

The full text is below, or you can access the PDF version (128kB) here.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Civil Unions, Family, Marriage, Moral Values, Submissions Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men – NZ Herald article by lecturer and author – Laurie Guy

August 31, 2012 by Leave a Comment

All you need is love. That is the theme song of pro-same-sex marriage proponents. It is the slogan of Louisa Wall, author of the same-sex marriage bill. If two gay people love each other and want to “marry”, why don’t we allow this? But is love enough?

In answering that question, we need to be aware of two other questions: what is marriage? And why is the state involved? The latter question is crucial, because the core issue is one of affirmation, not rights – rights can be dealt with by specific legislation without amending the Marriage Act and upsetting lots of people.

Apart from conveying rights, marriage provides affirmation that the state/society encourages this relationship as a good thing. A crucial question is whether gay relationships are such a good thing as to be endorsed by society as “marriage”.

We should look at the issue of social endorsement through four lenses: love, commitment, health, and society’s interests.

Let’s begin with love. What is “love”? The word covers a raft of sometimes contrary meanings, from sexual desire centred on “my” self-gratification, to heroic self-giving for another. Both heterosexual and same-sex unions may well pass (or fail) this test. The love issue does not debar same-sex marriages.

However, love alone is not enough. It can be fleeting and transient. If marriage is to be serious and not trivial, it needs longevity, buttressed by commitment and faithfulness.

What of gay commitment and faithfulness? Long-term lesbian relationships on average may well be as committed and faithful as that of an average married heterosexual couple. The problem is the gay men.

Some male gay couples are as committed and faithful as typical married heterosexuals. Survey evidence, however, indicates that these are very much a minority.

Significant data on male homosexual behaviour is available through New Zealand Medical Journal articles and the New Zealand Aids Foundation website. The Aids Foundation and the Aids Epidemiology Group at the University of Otago have conducted biennial surveys, the Auckland Gay Periodic Sex Surveys, for the past decade.

The 2010 results covered the sexual behaviour of 1527 gay men in 2008. On the commitment side, the survey indicates that the most common number of sexual partners for gay men over the previous six months was two to five. Just 38.8 per cent of those surveyed had a partner of more than six months’ standing (i.e. relationships with some level of commitment).

However, 52 per cent of these men had also had sex in that period (six months) with other partners. So despite the rhetoric of love and commitment, most male gay couples are not in a genuinely monogamous relationship. Should the meaning of “marriage” be broadened under such circumstances?

There is also the health issue. Male-to-male coupling typically has far greater health risks (because of high levels of anal sex). Both with casual and with “boyfriend” sex the percentage engaging in anal sex is over 80 per cent. Anal sex is never fully safe. Although condoms reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/Aids) by around 85-90 per cent, risk remains (because of user misuse or product failure).

Risk is far greater without condom protection. Although 98 per cent of those surveyed knew that anal sex without a condom is very high risk for HIV transmission, 73 per cent did not use a condom at least once in the past six months (the figure for casual sex was 31 per cent).

The result is high levels of sexually transmitted infections amongst gay men. Over 60 per cent of new infectious syphilis cases are gay men. This category also has high rates of gonorrhoea and hepatitis. And 76 per cent of all new HIV diagnoses in 2000-2009 were gay men.

Can we affirm male gay relationships to the level of “marriage”, given the data on faithfulness and health? One can argue change on the basis of “me”, “my rights” and “choice”. But the debate is also about the good of society.

What society needs are stable, faithful, healthy relationships. Stable marriage has gravely weakened in the last generation. There is deep hurt and scarring of many, especially children, as a consequence.

In a direct sense gay “marriage” will not make this worse. Indirectly, however, it will, because it makes marriage, which for many is becoming vague and fuzzy, vaguer and fuzzier still. It is social engineering – with its negative aspects ignored.

We need to have a deep and wide debate, looking at all factors. The same-sex marriage debate is currently far too simplistic. The draft bill is a daft bill.

Laurie Guy is author of Worlds in Collision: The Gay Debate in New Zealand 1960-1986 (Victoria University Press, 2002). He lectures in church history at Auckland University’s school of theology, and also at Carey Baptist College.

Source: Fidelity in marriage an issue for gay men. 31 August 2012

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10830082

Note: The Objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. include: “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity ……” (s. 2d of Constitution).

Filed Under: HIV/AIDS STIs, Homosexuality, Marriage, Moral Values, promiscuity Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

“Say NO to ‘gay marriage’ Christians must stand firm” – call to readers of Challenge Weekly (owned by charity)

July 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, has devoted half of its recent front page to a report on a ‘survey’ it carried out concerning opinions on two draft bills being prepared by two MPs on ‘gay marriage’. On page 4 it has a report republished from UK Christian Today: “Pro marriage couple receive hate mail: Online bulling for traditional stance [taken on marriage].” (Challenge Weekly 9 July 2012)

The entity owning Challenge Weekly, Challenge Publishing Society Ltd , incorporated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908 on 30 January 1975; was granted charity status (Charity Reg. No. CC34094) under the second head of charity law – “advancement of education”. The newspaper it owns reports:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the general consensus of the majority of people Challenge Weekly approached for comment on what appears to be growing support for “gay marriage”.

“Green Party MP Kevin Hague and Labour MP Louisa Wall both plan to draft bills supporting ‘same-sex marriage’ and a TVNZ poll showed majority support for a legal change to allow “gay” marriage. Another poll conducted in June by Herald-Digipoll, of 750 people, saw over 50 per cent of respondents in support of legalising gay marriage.

The report then goes on to reflect the views of three well-known Christian leaders on the proposed bills: former National Party MP Rev Graeme Lee (who says he is “outraged“), leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig (who says he is “opposed“) and former MP Gordon Copeland (who says he is “concerned“).

Mr Colin Craig is reported as saying:

“This debate is purely and simply about who can use the word marriage. There are many interested parties in this debate. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has significance culturally, historically, religiously and morally for many New Zealanders.”

[Comment: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”), a registered charity (CC20268) has as one of its objects: “To promote the benefits of lasting marriage, strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities”. Naturally SPCS will be taking an active interest in the ongoing debate on the legal definition of the term “marriage”. Prime Minister John Key has called on the public to engage in constructive debate on the issue, a call made following President Barack Obama’s recent declaration of his ‘revised’ stance on the matter. It is noteworthy that Challenge Publishing Society Ltd, a registered charity, has taken such an active interest in this subject, even though it is controversial, and has pitched its call to its readership – “SAY NO”.

Reference:

Challenge Weekly, July 9, 2012 Vol 70 Iss 25. pp. 1, 4.

Form speaks out

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2375-forum-speaks-out-.html

Forum to confront ‘sex ed’

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2333-forum-to-confront-sex-ed-.html

 

Filed Under: Homosexuality, Marriage, Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Parents warned about sex education and promiscuity: Family First “NZ Forum on the Family” speaks out

July 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Challenge Weekly Newspaper, owned by a legal entity that was incorporated in 1975 and registered with the Charities Commission as a charity on 30 June 2008, has devoted its front page to a report on the Family First NZ “Forum on the Family” held in Auckland on 28 June 2012 and attended by about 200 delegates, many from a “national network of family-focused organisations and lobby groups”.

The entity owning Challenge Weekly, Challenge Publishing Society Ltd , incorporated under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908 on 30 January 1975; was granted charity status (Charity Reg. No. CC34094) under the second head of charity law – “advancement of education”. The Family Forum that this charity’s newspaper reported on, is run by another registered charity – Family First NZ ( Charity Reg. No. CC10094)- registered by the same Charities Commission on 21 March 2007. ( Note: The Charities Commission was deregistered on 1 July 2012 and is now part of the Department of Internal Affairs).

“Forum speaks out: Parents warned about sex education” is the bold headline on page one of Challenge Weekly (2 July 2012, P.1).

The report details findings presented by a keynote speaker Dr Miriam Grossman – “a leading whistle-blower on the dangers of political correctness in her field of child and adolescent psychiatry, [who] informed attendees that what New Zealand children are being taught in the classroom is neither medically accurate nor includes everything they need to know.”

She is reported as having said: “Sex education is a social movement which aims to change society; it’s based on ideology, not health.”

Dr Grossman believes that sexual education promotes sexual licence [PROMISCUITY & PERMISSIVENESS] rather than sexual health.

“Family Planning seems to argue that it is on the same page as parents but this simply is not true. Kids are being told that it’s up to them when they have sex and sex education introduces students to high risk behaviours. All this is coming from a world view.”

Both Dr Grossman and Family First’s national director Bob McCoskrie felt it was important to point out that Dr Grossman has challenged representatives from Family Planning [FPA] or Rainbow Youth to a debate on national radio, but has had no response.

[New Zealand Family Planning Association Inc. was registered as a charity (CC11104) with the Charities Commission on 13 September 2007. Rainbow Youth Inc. was registered as a charity (CC24284) by the Commission on 13 May 2008].

It is noteworthy that a leading medical expert has in effect advanced one of the objects of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc (“SPCS”): “To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of SEXUAL PROMISCUITY …” It is also noteworthy that a registered charity – Family First NZ has given such prominence to this issue at its annual Family Forum event. Finally it is noteworthy that another registered charity – Challenge Publishing Society Limited has seen fit via its newspaper to give such prominence to this message.

The Society (SPCS) was registered as a charity with the Charities Commission on 17 December 2007.

References:

Challenge Weekly. July 2, 2012 Vol 70 Iss 24, P. 1.

www.companies.govt.nz

www.charities.govt.nz

www.spcs.org.nz (“Objectives” Tab)

Filed Under: Family, Moral Values, promiscuity, Sexuality Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Promotion of ethical standards of conduct, good citizenship and public participation in the prevention of crime

July 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Promotion of ethical standards of conduct, spiritual welfare or improvement, good citizenship,  moral improvement, public participation in the prevention of crime. and the sound administration of the law, have ALL been considered charitable purposes within the Fourth Head of English Charity Law (Lord Macnaghten’s fourth head of charity)

“The Charity Commissioners [for England and Wales: [1999] Ch. Comm. Dec. November 17 (the Church of Scientology), p. 29]] have suggested that Re Price and Re South Place Ethical Society provide authority for saying that an organisation that disseminates ideas which are broadly philosophical and which are generally accessible to and can be applied within the community and which can be adopted freely from time to time according to individual choice or judgment by member of the public should be charitable. Such a purpose is compatible with ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] principles if charitable status is not denied because the organisation is promoting a belief system which is not a religion in terms of English charity law or because membership adherence to the organisation is not necessary.

“The Charity Commissioners have determined that the promotion of racial harmony is charitable by analogy to the promotion of spiritual welfare or improvement. In particular, the Community Security Trust was registered with one of its objects being the promotion of good race relations between the Jewish community and other members of society by working towards the elimination of racism in the form of anti-Semitism.

“The Charity Commissioners have also entered on the register a number of trusts within this category as promoting good citizenship…

“The promotion of good citizenship can cover the promotion of public participation in the prevention of crime, particularly that which is  racially motivated.

“The Commissioners have indicated that they regard the promotion of ethical standards of conduct by organisations as charitable within this category [See (1994) 2 Ch. Com. Dec., pp.5, et seq (Public Concern at Work)]. The promotion of the sound administration of the law can also be regarded as charitable as being the promotion of moral improvement [[1996] Ch. Com. Rep., paras 60-65 (JUSTICE)].”

Source: Extracts from The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, 4th Edition Hubert Picardo QC (pp. 126-127)

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Promotion of mental or moral improvement as a general charitable purpose

July 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“In Re Scowcroft [ [1898] 2 Ch 638] Stirling J. held that a devise … of a building “to be maintained for the furtherance of Conservative principles and religious and mental improvement” was a good charitable gift. The furtherance of religious and mental improvement was an essential portion of the gift and the gift might, as the judge observed, be supported on the ground that it was for the public benefit just as a gift of a library or museum would have been held to be a good charitable gift. Thus the decision did not depend solely on the element of mental improvement since there was also an element of general public utility. Similar considerations applied in Re Hood [ [ 1931] 1 Ch. 240] to a gift for the promotion of temperance otherwise than by political means. Both elements were present.

“In Re Price [[1943] Ch.422] the charitable character of the bequest depended exclusively on the element of moral improvement…

On the evidence of the actual teachings apart from the evidence of benefit to individuals, Cohen J was satisfied that the teachings [of Dr. Rudolf Steiner - ] were directed to the mental or moral improvement of man and that they were not contra bonos mores. He held as a matter of law that the court was not concerned to determine whether the carrying on of the teachings of Rudolf Steiner would in fact result in the mental or moral improvements of anyone, and he did not find as a fact that they would. His Lordship’s finding of fact was that the teachings might have that result, and his conclusion of law was that this was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of public benefit.

“Although Cohen J. considered that the trusts of the residuary gift resembled trusts for the advancement of religion, he treated the gift as falling under Lord Macnaghten’s fourth head of charity.

“In Re South Place Ethical Society [[1980] 1 W.L.R.. 1565], Dillon J. held, as an alternative ground for his decision, by analogy with Re Scowcroft, Re Hood and Re Price, that the objects of the Society were charitable within the fourth head of Lord Macnaghten’s classification as being for mental or moral improvement.

“None of the cases considered provide a reasoned argument for the promotion of mental and moral improvement as a general charitable purpose, nor do they set any guidelines for the future application of this category of charity although the overall purpose is now fully acceptable as charitable

Extract from The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, 4th Edition Hubert Picardo QC (pp. 124-126)

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Research into and dissemination of information useful to the community: charitable purposes

July 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

“Research into matters that are useful to the community is capable of being charitable under the fourth head [of charity as defined by Lord Macnaghten i.e. serving a "public benefit"] as well as falling under the head of education and…”

[supported by case law: Re Besterman's Will Trusts (1980) Times, 22 January repeated in McGovern v A-G [1982] Ch 321. And see The Consumers’ Co [1985] Ch Com Rep 12-14, paras 28-32].

Source: Extract from The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, 4th Edition Hubert Picardo QC (p. 220-221).

Comment: This means that the charitability of an incorporated society can be established in law under at least two heads: advancement of education AND serving a “public benefit” through the “promotion of moral  or spiritual welfare or improvement”.

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , ,

“Promotion of Moral or Spiritual Welfare or Improvement” and “the Charitability of Moral Improvement”.

July 7, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Extract from The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, 4th Edition Hubert Picardo QC (pp. 220-221)

It now appears to be possible to isolate a further [4th] head of charity [in addition to relief of poverty, advancement of education and advancement of religion] consisting of ‘trusts for certain purposes which are not religious but tend to promote the moral or spiritual welfare of the community or a sufficiently important section of the community’. [Emphasis added]

Note: A trust to elevate the community spiritually has been upheld in Canada: see Re Orr (1917) 40 OLR 567.

See Tudor on Charities (9th edn) 115-117 [for discussion on what constitutes "a sufficiently important section of the community"]

This far from compendious [4th] head [of charity] is admittedly fashioned from heterogeneous materials. No general principle should be deduced from animal charities which are an anomaly. Trusts for the promotion of temperance are more surely justified as charities by reference to the promotion of health than by reference to the somewhat vaguer concept of moral improvement….

Re Price ….[involving] an unincorporated association called the Anthroposophical Society of Great Britain …. The learned judge [Cohen J] on hearing evidence that the teachings of Dr Rudolf Steiner were directed to the mental or moral improvement of man and were not contra bonos mores decided that they might result in such mental or moral improvement and upheld the gift under Lord Macnaghten’s forth head of charity….

Certainly religion has been described as ‘fostering the moral or mental improvement of the community‘ [ Waltz v Tax Comrs of City of New York 397 US 664 (1970)]. But the notion of moral improvement was further upheld as charitable in Re South Place Ethical Society [ [1980] 1 WLR 1565] and there are other Commonwealth cases supporting the charitability of moral improvement. [See Re Wright (1923) 56 NSR 364 (training in higher ideals); cf Cameron v Church of Christ Scientist (1918) 57 SCR 298 at 304 (uplifting of humanity).

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Society advancing “mental or moral improvement of man” (ruled a charitable purpose) is serving a “public benefit”

July 1, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Court held on the evidence that the teachings of Rudolf Steiner advanced by the Anthroposophical Society of Great Britain were directed to “the mental or moral improvement of man,” an aim which constituted a “charitable” purpose, and that its activities served a “public benefit”.

Source: Analysis of the law underpinning Public Benefit and the Advancement of Moral or Ethical Belief Systems.

Legal Analysis by UK Charities Commission (Annex, Digest of Cases) pp. 8-9. September 2008.

Re Price [1943] 1 Ch. 422-435.

A bequest was made to the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain ["ASGB"] to be “used at the discretion of the chairman and executive council of the society for carrying on the teachings of the founder, Dr. Rudolf Steiner” (variously described by Steiner as “spiritual science” and “anthroposophy” – the wisdom of mankind).

The society was an unincorporated voluntary association founded in 1923 at a meeting at which Dr. Rudolf Steiner was appointed president for life. Its constitution was divided into three parts, statutes, rules and bye-laws. The statutes were in the following terms:

“2. The aim of the society is to form, in the words of Rudolf Steiner, a union of human beings who desire to further the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.

“The society will endeavour to fulfil its tasks:

“(a) by providing adequate facilities for individual study and mutual aid in the study of spiritual science;

“(b) by encouraging practical activities which will bring into the civilisation of our time the beneficial results of spiritual science….

“5. The society is an entirely public organization and in no sense a secret society. It was averse to any sectarian tendency and does not consider politics to be among its tasks. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever should be excluded from the society.”

In his affidavit, Mr Harwood, who is the teacher in the principal school conducted on Rudolf Steiner’s education principles, stated:

“The teachings of Steiner are directed to the extension of knowledge of the spiritual in man and the universe generally and of the interaction of the spiritual and the physical. He sought to show both how this knowledge could be acquired and how it could be applied for the benefit of man in a wide range of activities. It could be acquired, he taught, by the development of consciousness and with it of the perceptive faculties. He expounded a theory of knowledge, the philosophical basis of which is set forth by Steiner in certain of his books, in particular The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. In such books he sought to show the  the capacity of man for spiritual development leading to wider knowledge of the spiritual or supersensible in the world at large. In other books Steiner taught a method of mental and moral discipline designed to train the imaginative, creative and devotional faculties of the mind and so to develop the faculties of spiritual intuition and perception…. Steiner taught and developed the application of this knowledge to religion and education generally including medicine, art and agriculture.”

Evidence [was provided] that the sole purpose for which the society [ASGB] actually carried on was to carry on the teachings of Dr Rudolf Steiner. But this was not the only object that the society had or could have (power to amend). It [the bequest] was held not to be an absolute gift to society. But, even if there was a trust, it did not tend to a perpetuity since there was nothing to prevent members from spending it immediately for the benefit of the class intended. There was the necessary certainty as to the purpose on which the bequest was to be expended (so the court could come to a conclusion as to the propriety of any item of expenditure that might be challenged). The area and content of Steiner’s teachings were not so vague and indeterminate as to impede this.

[The Court] “Held [on the evidence presented] (1) that, under the terms of the will, … the bequest was valid” and ”
(2) that it was a valid charitable gift.”  The teachings of Rudolf Steiner were taken to be directed to the mental or moral improvement of man.

Source: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/pbmora.pdf

Comments by SPCS:

The aim of ASGM (quoted above) is extremely broad and embodied concepts which would be considered vague and incomprehensible to mainstream science today, such as the concept that society itself, in contrast to the individual, actually possesses a “soul” whose spiritual life, can be furthered, enhanced and enriched through the study of “spiritual science”. While some philosophers such as Teilhard de Chardin have espoused the concept of a “world soul”, few philosophers would treat such an extrapolation of the individual soul to the “soul” of a society or civilisation, as nothing more than metaphor or literary devise, even if they did hold to the metaphysical reality of an individual human soul.

Mainstream scientists find terms such as “spiritual science” to be an oxymoron: science can only deal with facts that are verifiable applying the empirical method, while scientific theories are required to pass the falsifiability test. The notion of a “spiritual” world is utterly alien to the language of discourse in mainstream science.

Despite all these reservations, the court found Steiner’s teachings were directed to the mental or moral improvement of man. The Anthroposophical Society therefore, in promoting the “beneficial results of spiritual science”, clearly qualified as a genuine charity advancing charitable purposes.

The second means listed by ASGB to achieve this aim – “encouraging practical activities which will bring into the civilisation of our time the beneficial results of spiritual science” (emphasis added) is very similar to those of SPCS, which include:

2(a) “to encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person made in the image of God”… 2(b) to promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation …. 2(c) … to promote the benefits of lasting marriage….  wholesome personal values… etc.

All SPCS objects presuppose the notion that society stands to see beneficial results if individuals and groups embrace a lifestyle and behaviour that is based on a good moral foundations and one that aspires to a “spiritual” understanding of relationships both with fellow-man and his Creator (see s. 2[a] – “The human person made in the image of God”).

Like ASGB, SPCS is an a public organisation and is in no sense a secret society. It is averse to any sectarian tendency and has never considered party politics to be among its tasks. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever is excluded from the SPCS, in the sense that it recognises the merits of “responsible freedom of expression” (s. 2[f] of its objects) that derives from the celebration of free will as one of the gifts humans are endowed with by their Creator.

Steiner taught a “method of mental and moral discipline” in the belief that adherence to it by individuals would benefit them and society at large. SPCS has as one of its objects: “To foster public awareness of the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of community standards …” For individuals to adhere to community standards a certain degree of “mental and moral discipline” is obviously required. Legislation establishes the boundaries in law, and each time enforcement is applied to ensure adherence to these limits, society, in effect expresses its desire that its citizens apply “mental and moral discipline” to advance the “public good”.

SPCS has objects that are in part directed to the “mental or moral improvement of man” – a broad concept no doubt – but one that seeks to promote “the public good”. For example, by advancing its case for “the recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages” (s. 2[b] of its objects), SPCS is merely holding up the same ideals as embodied in, for example, the Hippocratic Oath, that  all physicians and healthcare professionals swear to uphold when carrying out their duties, and The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, which must be adhered to by all member states.

Reference: In re Price

Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company, Limited v. Harwood.

J. Cohen 1943.

 

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc – registered charity engaging in political advocacy

June 22, 2012 by Leave a Comment

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc. is listed alongside the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) in The Encyclopedia of New Zealand under its section entitled “Cause Interest Groups“. Both are registered charities with the Charities Commission.

“Forest and Bird”, as it has come to be known in the media, was registered as a charity on 30 June 2008 (Reg. No. 26948) and one of its objectives is identical to that of  the SPCS (CC20268) – fund-raising so that it can advance its objectives. SPCS which was registered as a charity on 17 December 2007 also raises funds (see s. 2[g] of SPCS constitution). Both entities are incorporated societies. SPCS was registered as an incorporated society on 25 September 1975 (Reg. No. 217833).

Forest and Bird objectives are aimed at saving society from the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of the physical and biological environment, with the consequent loss of invaluable species. SPCS objectives are centred on advancing spiritual and moral welfare and alerting the public to the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of moral and community standards.

The Encyclopedia entry confirms that Forest and Bird is a lobbying group, heavily involved in political advocacy:

“Scenery preservation societies were formed in the 1880s to maintain town belts and urban reserves, and then began lobbying for the preservation of native forest in general. This led to the Scenery Preservation Act 1903, a landmark measure in protecting New Zealand’s heritage.

“In 1923, angered by the destruction of Kapiti Island’s natural ecosystem, Val Sanderson founded what became the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (later Forest and Bird). Since then the society has lobbied governments to protect endangered animal species and wild places. In 2011 its management team included a lawyer, marketing managers and professional lobbyists. It had 50 branches and 70,000 members and supporters.”

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/3

In the financial year ended 28 February 2011, Forest and Bird received grants and sponsorship totalling $1,459,709. It spent $2,248,348 of its gross income of $5,363,055 on salaries and wages. Its total expenses were $5,830,455 (source: www.charities.govt.nz).

The vigorous lobbying work undertaken by Forest and Bird – an environmental charity group – involves some of its officers having to regularly publicly criticise Ministers of the Crown, company officials, regional councillors and other public officials, over their policies, attitudes and actions. Some may well feel targeted and aggrieved to be singled out. Such ‘victims’ often like to remain hidden in anonymity behind their corporation structure or ministry machinery.

Robust debate is entered into by Forest and Bird and great efforts are engaged in to prod the consciences of some of these officials, to spur them into action to save the environment. Protest action is not foreign to Forest and Bird whose members have been known to trespass on private land by ‘nesting’ high in trees and chain themselves to earth-moving equipment to campaign against the logging of native forests. Such zeal is greatly admired by the environmental community and applauded by SPCS members.

Charities such as Forest and Bird must not be allowed to have their wings clipped by those seeking to stifle freedom of expression and who are determined to curtail robust public debate on ‘sensitive’ issues.

The moral and spiritual welfare of our physical and biological environment is worth upholding, as are the community and moral standards that have been the foundation of our society.

Filed Under: Moral Values Tagged With: , , , , ,
«Older Posts
%d bloggers like this: