Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint programme has reported that Sexual Abuse Services nationwide are backing a Court of Appeal decision (KSB vs ACC) issued on Monday which ruled a woman had the right to ACC compensation for the mental stress suffered, after finding out a man she had been having unprotected sex with had HIV. He had failed to inform her [in the course of their four month relationship] that he had been diagnosed HIV-positive (“hiding HIV a sexual violation”).
There are at least ten separate charities registered with the Charities Commission that offer sexual abuse services.
Checkpoint included brief comments from the Chief Executive of Victim Support Sertvices and the National coordinator of the Rape Crisis Collective on the same matter and both stated clearly that their respective organisations are backing the Court of Appeal ruling.
There are ten charities registered with the Charities Commission offering victim support services and seven registered charities in the Rape Crisis collective alone..
In total there are at least 30 charities registered with the Charities Commission working in the areas of sexual abuse prevention, rape crisis and victim support that have backed the Court of Appeal ruling. Only one registered charity – The NZ Aids Foundation – has spoken out publicly against what has beeen described in the media as a “major precedent in NZ law” created by this Court of Appeal ruling.
It could be well-argued that all these 30 charities highlighted have engaged in “political advocacy” as defined by the Charities Commission, in publicly expressing their particular points of view about the Court Ruling.
If NZAF persists over a number of years to publicly oppose this Court ruling then one might surmise that the Commission will have to take the view that this registered charity is engaging in the “perpetual advocacvy of a particular point of view”, an “activity” which the Commission claims is a non-charitable and consitutes “political advocacy”. However, NZAF has been engaging in “political advocacy” and “political lobbying” (to use the Commission’s definitions) for years – for example seeking to have existing legislation changed and/or promotinmg new legislation that supports “gay rights” and promotes its “safe-sex condom” message.