SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

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

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)). 

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

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

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

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”

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

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

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

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

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