“SAFEs awareness campaign For The Love Of Pigs offers an evening of wine, music and local celebrities and comedians this Thursday.

“The event Pigs, Kiwis And A King will take place at the Auckland Museum, and is hosted by comedian Mike King, speaking out against animal cruelty. Like battery hens, factory-farmed pigs are often kept in cruel and claustrophobic crates, and the animal-activists at SAFE [Save Animals From Exploitation] demand healthy and humane conditions for the animals.

[See: http://www.lovepigs.org.nz/Home/]

“The fun begins at 7pm, when the SAFE [a registered charity] awareness campaign unites all those of us who love pigs, hate animal cruelty, and have watched Babe too many times.”

Published by “Admin” JollyPeople.com June 19, 2009

Promoting Charity Events Around the World

Source: http://auckland.jollypeople.com/safe-awareness-love-pigs-campaign/4365/

[Report on Charity Event: "The evening went so late that we finished at breakfast with bacon & eggs supplied to us by a local pen & battery-cage farmer! Most delightful." Ally 'N Good-Humor, Auckland  :-) ].

United Future leader, the Hon. Peter Dunne, has today in a Dominion Post report, pointed to “a whole suite of agenda items”, promoted by allegedly “seriously extreme and nutty” campaigners, that in his view constitute ”a real moral jihad”. He has highlighted two of his former party members as “extreme”  jihadists possessing “little tolerance” in their alleged “fanaticism over smacking” laws, opposition to the reform of prostitution laws and desire to tighten the abortion laws.

Of course Family First NZ, a well-respected registered charity with the Charities Commission, has taken up with alacrity the cudgels in defence of these charitable conservative agenda items, since the demise of the two colleagues Dunne so vigorously lambasts. It has added its concerns over promiscuity and gay marriage to its suite of media releases – both subjects that politicians, including the Prime Minister the Rt. Hon. John Key.  have called for public debate on.

One delightful example of ‘moral jihad’ Dunne appears to have overlooked is SAFE’s “Freedom For Pigs Campaign – For the Love of Pigs…” supported by former Green MP Sue Kedgley and her colleagues:

SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) is a registered “animal rights” charity, one of a number of charities determined to get changes made to the Animal Welfare Act in order to try and “save” crated pigs and battery hens and a even a veteran circus elephant “Jumbo” from cruelty, slavery and exploitation by humankind.

See: http://www.lovepigs.org.nz/LovePigs-campaign/SAFE-in-action!/

Safe members are regularly urged to engage in forms of “political advocacy”. For example, the lovepigs.org website states:

” LOBBY YOUR MP  …… The key to improving animal welfare legislation lies in convincing politicians to support the campaign. By sending the Lobbying for Lucy e-card to your local MP you are helping to get pigs on the political agenda.  Email your completed  e-card to your local MP asking him or her to support calls for the legislation to protect pigs from cruelty.

“Why not visit your MP and ask them what they can do to help pigs. Talking to an MP does take courage but it is extremely important. Don’t be shy, give it a go. SAFE can provide further information for you or the MP if required.”

This ‘moral jihad’ for “animal rights”  (geese and ducks) is currently being fought on the streets of Wellington outside Le Canard restaurant, by SAFE protestors - none of whom could possibly be accused of being “seriously extreme and nutty” or exhibiting any whisper of intolerance. FAR from it!

Pragmatic political advocacy on behalf of poultry and piggies is a ‘Dunne deal’ worthy of any new age charity- sponsored New Order political aspirants.

SAFE continues to publicly bemoan the refusal of the National Party to support the failed Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, that, if it had been passed, would have issued in the salvation of persecuted piggies and poultry. Remonstations against such evils by SAFE ”animal rights” activists has fuelled a deluge of donations of several million dollars into this sector of the charity industry. It has helped convert many meat lovers into vegetarians who have set up more registered charities promoting vege foods untainted by exploitation of animals and the responsible treatment of our fellow non-human life forms.

Reference:

Dunne attacks Conservatives as ‘moral jihad’ extremists.

The Dominion Post. Thursday, May 12, 2012. P. A.2.

The standover tactics employed by the noisy rabble outside Wellington’s Le Canard restaurant (May 12-13) are repellent in the extreme.

As self-styled “professional people with sensible jobs”, they should know that the concerns they have with the production of foie gras lie with producers in France, not with a restauranteur going about his legitimate and “sensible” business.

They are not only creating a public nuisance but are also guilty of bullying, an action that shows a lack of probity greater than that involved in over-feeding a farmyard bird.

The arrogance of zoologist Michael Morris, of Speak up for Animals, and his ilk – those who know what’s best for everyone else, including all non-human organisms (although apparently excluding micro-organisms) should be resisted at every turn, irrespective of their warped beliefs.

Letter to Editor by Allen Heath, Woburn. (Dominion Post, p. B4)

______

Note:

A SAFE (Save Animals from Exploitation) Board member, zoologist Dr Michael Morris, who is one of the leaders of the anti-foie gras campaign directed at the Wellington French restaurant Le Canard, was recently reported by The Dominion Post as saying that his five fellow-campaigners, like himself, were “professionals with sensible jobs”. The “animal rights” group has vowed to carry on its protests outside Le Canard restaurant until its foie gras dish is taken off the menu.

SAFE is a registered charity with the Charities Commission headed by Mr Trevor Garrett. “Animal rights advocacy” and political advocacy (involving actively seeking to get the animal welfare laws changed) are apparently approved by the Commission, given the number of “animal rights” lobby groups it has granted charity status.

_____________

A Whangarei childcare centre is planning legal action against the a New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF) for slander.

[The NZAF lobby group, active in political advocacy, is a charity registered with the Charities Commission headed by Mr Trevor Garrett. NZAF had a total gross income of $4,659,689 in the financial year ended 30 June 2011, which including $4,112,376 in Government grants/contracts, $342,029 from other grants and $117,508 from donations. Its total expenditure for the year was $4,997,359].

The centre said NZAF made false comments about it, which have ruined its reputation – but NZAF said the centre needed to acknowledge it has made “really poor decisions”.

A spokeswoman for NZAF says the foundation stood by its comments that the centre was wrong to stand down a four-year-old boy with HIV while it developed a care plan.

Mokopuna Early C E and Care Centre, run by He Puna Marama Trust, asked the boy’s mother in late April to remove her son after she told them he was HIV-positive.

Trust chief executive Raewyn Tipene said the centre wanted to put a care plan in place for the boy, but NZAF told the centre there was no need for a care plan as the level of HIV in his blood was so low it could not be transmitted to other children.

The controversy resulted in a war of words, with NZAF saying the centre had expelled the boy and Tipene disputing that.

“It was slander and it wrecked our reputation.

“They have lied blatantly and created a fear and animosity towards our centre. We’re going to take them as far as we can through the courts,” Tipene said.

Staff were distressed and parents had felt “demonised”, she said.

“If we had done something wrong the Ministry of Education would have come down on us like a tonne of bricks.

“They have gone and twisted the whole thing to their own agenda.”

Tipene believed that NZAF had “hijacked” the situation to create a media platform it could use to generate funding.

For full story see: www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/6917404/Legal-action-threat-in-HIV-child-stouch

What the Experts say

Early Childhood Council CEO Peter Reynolds said the centre’s actions were “reasonable” according to the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008.

The regulations state a centre must take “all reasonable steps to promote the good health and safety of children enrolled in the service; and take all reasonable precautions to prevent accidents and the spread of infection among children enrolled in the service”.

No complaint has been made to the Human Rights Commission, but it said in a statement last week that the boy’s mother could complain on the ground of disability.

For full story see: www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/6917404/Legal-action-threat-in-HIV-child-stouch

Upholding human rights is fundamental to the maintenance of good community standards and a functioning civil society, just as the upholding and promotion of the moral and spiritual welfare of its citizens is.

HRF’s Objects are succinctly stated on its website as: “We promote human rights through research, education and advocacy” (see www.humanrights.co.nz), and on its Trust Deed: “To promote human rights including by education, training and advocacy…” The high level of (political and representative) “advocacy” this registered charitable entity/lobby group engages in can be gauged from its involvement in the following examples of its activities:

• HRF made a submission to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee opposing the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill.

• HRF made a submission on the Ministry of Justice’s Bail Review.

• HRF made a submission to the Law and Order Select Committee on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill.

• HRF publicly opposed increased access to Firearms by frontline Police

• HRF made a submission to the Law and Order Select Committee on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

• HRF made a submission on the Search and Surveillance Bill.

• HRF was one of the founders of CATT – formed to oppose Police plans to introduce American made Taser guns into New Zealand policing operations.

• HRF made a submission on the government’s Immigration Review.

• HRF made a submission on the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. Like a number of other registered charities, it supported the so-called ‘anti-smacking’ legislation championed by Green MP Sue Bradford.

• HRF made a submission on the Torture Amendment Bill.

• HRF provided support for Ahmed Zaoui in his high-profile and lengthy battle over his refugee status, raising legal costs and expenses. Dr Rodney Harrison QC, HRF Advisory Council member and Deborral Manning were the legal team providing legal counsel to Ahmed Zaoui.

•   HRF has publicly condemned Indonesian authorities over Violence in Papua.

• HRF has pointed out deficiences in the New Zealand draft report on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

• HRF Advisory Board member Dr Rodney Harison QC has been counsel for Tame Iti and other Operation 8 accused of alleged group terrorism activities and firearm offences in the Ureweras. HRF has expressed its position on this highly contentious political issue.

• HRF made a submission to the Select Committee on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill May 2007

• HRF made a submission on the Social Security Amendment Bill March 2007

• HRF made a submission on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces Amendment) Bill – )ctober 2006

• HRF made a submission on the Maori Purposes Bill. October 2006

The commitment of The Human Rights Foundation of Aoteoroa New Zealand – a highly respected registed charity – to (political and representative) “advocacy” must be well understood by the Charities Commission. Such well-publicised lobbying activities are laudable and may well deserve much greater publicity both in New Zealand and overseas.

Upholding human rights is fundamental to the maintenance of good community standards and a functioning civil society, just as the upholding and promotion of the moral and spiritual welfare of its citizens is.

SAFE is a registered charity with the Charities Commission headed by Mr Trevor Garrett. Its finanancial accounts (available on line on the 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; all presumably in sensible professional charity jobs funded from the charitable donations SAFE received from charitable New Zealanders, many holding down sensible professionsal jobs.

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 – the latter derived no doubt from donations given by many New Zealanders employed in sensible professional jobs.

With nine SAFE  Board members listed (including two with the name of “Michael Morris” and both appointed on 12 November 2011) on the Charity Commission’s website, it would appear that SAFE’s  governance is in multiple professional sensible SAFE hands.

The Cruelty Free Shop that SAFE runs in Auckland is staffed by contractors whose combined annual salary and wages in 2011 was $96,544. The shop ran up a significant trading deficit in 2011 of $54,760, a worse result than the previous year’s deficit of $42,743. Such losses were offset and absorbed from donations made by New Zealanders to SAFE, given by donors in the belief that such monies would help “save animals from exploitation”.

SAFE reported to the Charity Commission that in 2010/2011, 433 hours of paid work on average was carried out each week by SAFE’s  employees – 9 full-timers and 5 part-timers. In addition it was reported that 100 volunteers engaged in 200 combined hours of charity work for SAFE each week.

While Le Canard owner Pascal Bedel continues to serve up his traditional French delicacy of foie gras, to the chagrin of charity worker protestors like Dr Morris and his sensible “Speak Up for Animals” team, New Zealand donors will need to be found to fund such sensible and polite placard-welding animal rights taunters, so protestors can muscle on for perhaps many more months if required. For such is the resolve of Le Canard’s owner to continue to whip up his foie gras delights, that the taunters may need to continue their sensible charity work for much longer.

If through the taunts of protestors, Le Canard is forced out of business, SAFE lobbyists will presumably feel they have achieved a wonderful victory, even though they are fully aware that Le Canard’s serving of the French delicacy they are protesting against, is lawful and therefore upholds community standards.

If SAFE’s Cruelty Free Shop runs up a significant financial loss, its members can be assured that the charity hat can be passed around to the New Zealand public yet again, and they will no doubt hand-over their money thinking they are saving ducks and geese and other criters from percecution.

The persecution of a French restaurant owner and his workers by “animal rights activists” closely linked to a registered charity with close on a million dollar annual charity income, suggests that a new charity needs to be set up by those persecuted in order to maintain balanced community standards. Perhaps best called the French Animal Rights Opposition Movement, it would probably be able to offer its sensible professional donors the right to make tax-deductible donations.

Marriages are a matter of significant public concern, as the record of almost every culture shows. If it weren’t for the fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman leads to children and brings with it a further obligation to care for those children, the notion of marriage would probably never have existed, and the state would not have been interested in it.

Marriage encourages the raising of children by the mother and father who conceived them. On average, children raised by their biological parents who are married have the best outcomes in health, education and income, and by far the lowest involvement with the criminal justice system. As Prominent Irish homosexual and political commentator Richard Waghorn says, this is certainly not to cast aspersions on other families, but it does underscore the importance of marriage as an institution.

It is true that marriage by definition is discriminatory. A homosexual cannot now legally marry. But neither can a whole lot of other people. A five-year old boy cannot marry. Three people cannot get married to each other. A married man can’t marry another person. Two old aunties living together cannot marry. A father cannot marry his adult daughter. A football team cannot enact group marriage – the list is endless. It is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away, when they never existed in the first place.

Interestingly, nature also discriminates against same-sex couples. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This discloses something of the purposes and providence of nature, and the necessity of the two sexes.

Utimately, gays can get married. But they don’t want to. And that is their right.

It is also important to note that marriage is not solely a religious belief. Marriage is a social practice and every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage, associated with procreation. Every society needs natural marriage.

If the law were to allow same-sex marriage, and only same-sex marriage, we would then be discriminating against those seeking open, temporary, polygymous, polyandrous, polyamorous (group), or incestuous (adult) unions – if all that counts is love and commitment.

As Phil Goff argued at our 2011 Forum on the Family conference, same-sex couples have the option of civil unions to recognise their relationship so there is no need for redefining marriage.

Supporters of same sex marriage argue that civil unions are a 2nd-class type of marriage. But there are many same-sex advocates who argue against ‘marriage’ for same sex couples, and even suggest that the claim is hurtful to those who have deliberately chosen civil unions.

Same-sex marriage is, by definition, an oxymoron. Equality does not mean we must redefine marriage for everyone.

Being pro-marriage and wanting to maintain its definition as being between a man and a woman is not ‘anti-gay’.

Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships – they just don’t have a right to redefine marriage.

The state – which did not invent marriage – has no authority to re-invent it.

END

Family First NZ website: www.familyfirst.org.nz

2.1 Pursuing social justice in Aotearoa/New Zealand through the promotion of, and respect for, the human rights of all persons, including the promotion of New Zealand’s obligations under international human rights law [e.g. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Humans Rights - to which the New Zealand government is a signatory].

2.2 Promoting an understanding of the inalienability, interdependence and universal application of all human rights laws.

2.4 Promoting the importance of human rights in the development and implementation of policy.

All three laudable principles designed to advance and promote community standards, clearly undergird an intended programme of political advocacy spelt out in the Trust’s statement of purposes, that include:

3.2   Provide policy advice to Government agencies, Parliamentary committees and such other legislative or Executive organs on the content of draft Bills proposed from a human rights perspective.

3.3   Provide a high quality, legal advice and advocacy service to bring litigation on matters relating to human rights or other issues of significant public interest.

It appears that the Charities Act 2005, as interpreted by the Charities Commission, permits registered charities to have such laudable principles and purposes as outlined above, involving a degree of “political advocacy” in the form of “advice” advanced to Parliamentary Committees by charity members or their representatives.

This advice may involve human rights lawyers commissioned by the Trust seeking to have legislators pass laws that embody a “correct” (i.e. the Trust’s) understanding of “a human rights perspective”. It may involve a charity such as Animal Rights Advocacy lobbying a Parliamentary Committee on behalf of ducks and geese to ensure that French restaurants such as Wellington’s Le Canard, are unable to serve up starter dishes (e.g. foie gras) that have allegedly involved perceived cruelty to these animals in the procuremenmt of their bloated livers as food delicacies (refer to SPCS posting on Animal Rights Advocacy).

It is laudable that registered “animal rights” and “human rights” charities are granted the “right” in law by the Charities Commission to lobby MPs on the critical “rights” issues noted above.

With the ever expanding quantum of registered charities (over 25,674 at last count) now on the Commission’s books, new charities may yet arise and be welcomed by the Commission into the ever expanding chartitable fold after gaining registration: Charities advancing “human rights” such as “Voice for the Rights’ of the Unborn Child”, “Foetus Defence League Inc.”, “Foetal Rights Campaigners Trust” and “Universal Declaration of Foetal Rights Trust Aotearoa New Zealand”.

s. 3.1.1     To expose violations of human rights to the public and United Nations.

s.3.1.3      To lobby for and support international human rights resolutions.

s. 3.1.4      To promote and publish human rights materials promoting The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

The Charities Commission records the Human Rights Advocacy ["HRA"] website as www.hradv.org and has the HRA Trust Deed available on its website (www.charities.govt.nz)

The HRA’s attractive website homepage features a colour photo of numerous human rights advocates holding up flags outside our Parliament buildings (presumably protesting against alleged human rights violations?). The HRA website seeks to expose the alleged persecution of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese and Vietnamese governments and highlights HRA’s lobbying efforts to seek to have human rights legislation upheld by the New Zealand Government.

The Charities Commission records HRA as engaging in “Human Rights Promotion, Education and Research”. The HRA website defines HRA as “an international non-government organisation [NGO] based in New Zealand… seeking to work with United Nations mechanisms” to effect law change etc.

As a registered charity, Human Rights Advocacy is able to offer significant tax-rebates to its New Zealand donors with taxable incomes. Its efforts to expose alleged human rights abuses of Falun Gong practitioners by the Chinese Government and alleged abuses of repatriated refugees by other governments, and its zealous lobbying for law change, could lead to foreign governments seeking to shut down its website and challenge its charity-registered status. However, the Charities Act 2005 does appear to allow for charities to engage in “political advocacy”, “animal rights advocacy”, “morals advocacy”, engage in political lobbying and even expose human rights violations and exploitation (corruption) by foreign governments of its citizens.

Human Rights Advocacy is a laudable endeavour deserving the support of all kiwis genuinely concerned about the exposure of human rights abuses both in New Zealand and overseas. Those seeking to uphold and promote good community standards should be prepared to speak out against such abuses.

SAFE’s many well-publicised mind-numbing charitable advocacy campaigns, including its financial members dressing up as “lame-ducks” outside the Department of Conservation HQ to protest against duck shooting, and the illegal and heroic rescue mission of pigs by New Zealand comedian Mike King and his SAFE organised and funded film crew, have not gone unnoticed by Charities Commission officials and other enforcement agencies. Pigs Incarcarated Inc. – whose members still remain housed in squalid farm cages – and who witnessed some of their colleagues being liberated by SAFE saviours; remain eternally grateful for the SAFE charitable rescue missions.

SAFE’s executive director Hans Kriek has just hit the headlines again with his staunch opposition to the practice of a Wellington family-owned French restaurant which offers its customers a traditional French starter delicacy Foie gras, made from duck or goose livers that have been engorged by over-feeding them with fat-covered grains [Censor's warning note: graphic details of this practice have been ommitted from this story as potentially "objectionable" and "in poor taste" - no pun intended].

Those concerned about community standards in the media are asking serious questions:

Is engaging in “animal rights advocacy” by a registered charity allowed under the Charities Act 2005? Is engaging in “advocacy” on behalf of ducks and geese allowed under the Act? It would appear so (see below).

But the question on the minds of every reader of the Dominion Post remains:

Are employees of “animal rights” charities permitted to attack, harrass, and hound the owners, staff and clients of a French restaurant who are engaging lawful practices? The answer to this question may depend on your choice of delicacy: scrawny or bloated/enhanced-biodegradable duck livers.

Today’s Dominion Post’s Report (p. A4) -  “Activists cry foul over French delicacy” states:

A FRENCH restaurant in Wellingtoin is beng hounded by activists protesting against its popular foie gras starter.

Placard-wielding animal-rights protesters have taunted Le Canard restaurant in Thorndon every weekend for more than six months, its owners say….

Pascal Bedel, whose family own Le Canard, said he was not concerned when activists  began chanting, holding up banners and handing out pamphlets outside his Murphy St restaurant last year. But then negative comments began appearing on websites and he started receiving calls every couple of days asking if he would take the [foie gras] dish off the menu.

“Since December I’ve got people coming here every couple of days and they protest during my service. They are here all the time and they push, push, push.”

Mr Bedel said he aimed to give diners an authentic French experience which included the “expensive and delicious” dish of his home region of southwest France. So he would never take the popular dish off the menu.

“I don’t make the law in New Zealand. Go to complain to them. not me.”

“You can’t talk to these people because they’re fanatical.”

Hans Kriek, executive director of animal-rights group SAFE, called foie gras a “barbaric” product, and said he knew about regular protests at a Wellington restaurant.”

[It is not surprising that he knew about the protests as one of SAFE's Board members, Dr Michael Morris, has been one of the leaders of the regular protests over the last six months]

__________

According to the Charities Commission website records (www.charities.govt.nz), the registered charity, SAFE, (Reg. No. CC40428), directed by Hans Kriek, dubbed by its members as “The Voice for all animals”, employs nine full-time persons as charity workers (including Mr Hans Kriek); five part-time employees and this involves 433 hours per week of paid/employee work.

In its audited financial accounts for the year ended 31/03/2011, SAFE records an income of $814,896 which derives largely from public donations ($691,268). A tax rebate can be claimed by donors against taxable income on all donations above $5.00.

SAFE’s total expenditure for the year was $959,592 and of that 61% ($589,430) is recorded as “salaries and wages” (to SAFE “employees, volunteeers, board members”). A total of 11% of income was spent on advertising to raise funds and promote its “animal rights” charity message. A sum of $22,718 in depreciation was claimed as an “expenditure” item in 2011. The closing balance involved a liability of $127,685.

The cost of a single popular foi gras starter at Le Canard in Wellington at $30, seems to us to be a mere paltry sum to pay to smear the senses as compared with the $959,592 spent to give a charitable-funded voice to poultry and over-plump peccaries, via foul and illegal advocacy charity protests. Expenditure on lame-duck suits and peccary face masks for SAFE protesters may have to be cut back in future years if  SAFE officials are going to be able to safely afford to attend future Board meetings at Le Canard and safely sample French delicacies.

__________

References:

1. SAFE website: www.safe.org.nz

2. SAFE was a participant organisation in the National Animal Rights Conference held in Auckland 22-24 July 2011. It submitted the following description of its activities to organisers for publication. See: www.ar-conference.org.nz/Organisations/

“SAFE is the second largest animal advocacy organisation in New Zealand and has for over 78 years been one of the strongest voices in New Zealand defending animals against cruelty and abuse. SAFE is dedicated to changing attitudes and nurturing compassionate values by educating the public about the inherent value of animals.”

3. The Dominion Post. Wednesday, May 9, 2012, A4. Activists cry foul  over French delicacy. Story by Judy O’Callaghan.

4. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/activists-protest-over-barbaric-french-delicacy-4872755

5. Wellington SAFE Group Protest in Lower Hutt against the ‘slavery’ of “Jumbo” the circus elephant

See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pdYPJowETE

6. SAFE’s Freedom For Pigs Campaign

http://www.lovepigs.org.nz/LovePigs-campaign/SAFE-in-action!/