SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Sexual Abuse Services and other registered charities support Court of Appeal HIV + ruling

by Leave a Comment

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. [Read more…]

NZAF – political advocacy – concerns over Court of Appeal HIV + decision

by Leave a Comment

The New Zealand Aids Foundation (“NZAF”) – a registered charity with the Charities Commission – has engaged in “political advocacy” so it would seem – by publicly expressing its serious concerns over the implications of a ruling issued yesterday by the Court of Appeal (CoA) that sets a precedent for people who unwittingly sleep with an HIV-positive person, to be covered by ACC for mental injury.

An unnamed woman had been fighting for six years to reverse ACC’s refusal to cover her mental injury caused after she discovered that her sexual partner had not disclosed to her that he was HIV positive. He had been found guilty of the offence of “criminal nuisance” for his actions, but ACC did not recognise this particular offence as one of the “sexual crimes” for which victims could claim an ACC payout for mental injury. The woman’s lawyer, John Miller, successfully argued in the CoA that she had been subjected to “sexual violation” (rape) by her partner, because he had taken away her right to “informed consent” by denying her knowledge of his HIV-positive status. Sexual violation is recognised by ACC as a sexual crime for which an ACC claim can apply in the case of mental injury.

The impact of the CoA ruling released yesterday, on criminal law, would be far reaching the women’s lawyer John Miller said. It meant that a person who did not disclose their HIV status before having unprotected sex could be charged with sexual violation, which has a maximum penalty of 20 years’ jail.

At the moment, an HIV-positiver person who does not disclose their infection status to their sexual partner and has unprotected sex, could be charged with a less severe offence such as “criminal nuisance”, which has a maximum penalty of one year imprisonment if the virus is not transmitted. If HIV is transmitted, a person could be imprisoned for up to seven years.

NZAF is very concerned over the impact of CoA decidsion because it (NZAF)  does not support further criminalisation of HIV transmission.  In its view, current penalties are adequate for the small number of offences that come before the courts.

“We would be seriously concerned about New Zealand’s management of the HIV epidemic if people were charged with sexual violation, ” executive director Shaun Robinson said.

“The results would be a significant decrease in HIV testing and increased stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV.”

Any registered charity daring to speak out in favour of this CoA ruling and in favour of the woman’s brave efforts to seek justice against the perpetrator of this horrendous sex crime committed by an HIV infected male, face accusations of committing a’crime’ themselves – that of engaging in ‘political advocacy’ and/or promoting a narrow moral viewpoint (as defined by the Charities Commission).

In contrast, the “perpetual advocacy of a particular point of view” (in this case one that that effectively downplays the seriousness of the sex crime of knowingly transmitting HIV – by the insistence that it be treated by the courts as mere “criminial nuisance” activity such as vandalism) is vigorously espoused by those who actually do have “political purposes” (i.e. NZAF).

The Court of Appeal ruling, which follows that of a recent Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the same matter and was relied on by John Miller in his presentation to the CoA, is the correct one in law. It determined that the criminalisation of HIV transmission in the case before it, was not a mere case of “criminal nuisance” but involved “sexual violation”.

An HIV-positive person who commits a sex crime (or any other crime) should be treated no differently to anyone else, including anyone who is infected with any other disease, who commit the same crime. The challenge for legislators is to ensure that on sentencing, the sentence that can and should be imposed under law, is commensurate with the seriousness of the crime committed.

Sources: The Dominion Post, Tuesday, March 13, 2012, p. A5.

Checkpoint – National Radio, Monday, March 12, 2012.

 

 

The Peace Foundation Disarmament and Security Centre – registered charity & political advocacy

by Leave a Comment

The Peace Foundation Disarmament and Security Centre (“PFDCS”)  was registered as a charity by the Charities Commission on 10 September 2007 (Charity No. CC11049). On its website [www.disarmsecure.org] it advertises itself as – Promoting Alternative Security: Specialist Branch of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Peace Foundation (“The Peace Foundation”), an Incorporated Society based in Auckland.

 The PFDCS  was first registered as a Charitable Trust (Reg. No. 1534262), under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, on 9 July 2004, prior to becoming a registered charity with the Charities Commission. It has as its stated primary purposes (source “Rules” registered 03/11/2007: Charities Commission website www.charities.govt.nz ):

 (a) Promote a climate of peace in Aotearoa/New Zealand

 (b) Promote peace and disarmament education throughout the education system and wider community

(c) Make regulations to advance the attainment of any of the above objects

 (d) Do any act or thing incidental or conducive to the attainment of any of the above objects.

“The Peace Foundation (the ‘parent body’ of PFDCS), based in Auckland, which received a total income of $651,920 in 2005/06 and which has been engaged in political advocacy since 28 May 1975 when it was first registered as an Incorporated Society; describes the PFDCS on its website as “The Christchurch Office of the Peace Foundation” – it provides the link to its website ( http://www.disarmsecure.org/links.php).  The Peace Foundation and PFDCS are therefore inextricably linked (http://www.peace.net.nz). [Read more…]

ASH New Zealand Inc. – an effective charity active in political advocacy

by Leave a Comment

ASH New Zealand Inc. is an incorporated society, a lobby group, and a registered charity with the Charities Commission (CC31354). ASH was registered as a charity on 30 June 2008.

Its stated “Mission” is “to improve the health and well being of all New Zealanders by eliminating disease and premature death due to tobacco” [Emphasis added]. Its very narrow focus on tobacco issues limits it as a charity to only engage in  activities in pursuit of promoting the adoption by the community of the Society’s particular point of view on the health issues of concern to the Society’s small number of members (the dangers of tobacco use). It seeks to focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of tobacco use. The vast majority of New Zealanders do not smoke tobacco and probably have little knowledge of or interest in ASH’s narrow agenda.

In the financial year ending 30 June 2011, this lobby group received $592,892 in government funding and $38,400 from all other grants and sponsorship – a grand total of $631,292. It spent $475,936 on wages and salaries (employing 5  full-tme people and 2 part-timers): 66.9% of its total income of $711,101.

ASH ended its 2010/11 financial year with a deficit of $24,511 and liabilities of $96,510. It had additional income sources over the period of $40,908 (donations and membership fees). Its total expenditure was $735,612.

The ASH lobby group’s objects, taken from section 3.1 of its constitution, include:

3.1.1 To educate the public about the harmful effects of active and passive smoking on health.

3.1.2 To support and encourage relevant legislation for the benefit of the community e.g. the Smoke-free Environments Act, 1990.

3.1.3 To advocate for services to assist smokers to quit.

3.1.6. To do any other lawful acts incidental to these objects or to the progress or enhancement of the Society and its objects.

3.1.7 To use the funds of the Society to attain the objects of the Society….

Comments by SPCS

The Society fully supports the good work carried out by ASH New Zealand Inc.

Concerning Section 3.1 of ASH’s constitution it comments:

S. 3.1.1

This is a close parallel to one of the 7 objects of SPCS: S. 2(d) “To focus attention [via education and research  etc] on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornography etc.

Critics of the two Societies – ASH and SPCS – might try to argue that because smoking, disseminating and watching hardcore pornography, engaging in promiscuity and using obsenities in a public place are all legal activities; these societies should be stripped of their charitable status because they are merely “promoting the adoption by the community of the particular points of view on moral/health issues of concern to the respective Societies.”

Such reasoning is fallacious. For example: Millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is spent each year to fund enforcement agencies seeking to safeguard society the public from the injurious impact of pornography and smoking. Using obscenities in a public to cause offence and the viewing of pornography on a work place computer are not legal activities. The injurious nature of such activities is now written into legislation.

 Section: 3.1.2.

This clearly allows ASH to lobby for legislative changes (“political advocacy”) and engage advocacy for current legislation it supports, both of which it does regularly. In contrast SPCS does not indulge in “political advocacy” despite accusations to the contrary, It does however seek “To foster public awareness on the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of communiy standards.”

Secton 3.13:

Clearly allows ASH to strongly advocate for services to be provided by government to help people quit smoking. This means political advocacy and lobbying is allowed for under its “charitable” objects.

If SPCS had an equivalent statement, which it does NOT, relating to porn, imagine the outcry!

To advocate for services to assist those addicted to porn to quit and those hooked on a promiscuous lifestyle to learn how to show sexual restraint. !!!

Note: It is misleading to claim that smoking, promiscuity, and porn viewing are all LEGAL activities . They are NOT within certain contexts.

It is now politically correct to advocate for and enforce smoke free work places. But this is only a very recent development following the enactment of relevant legislation following years of lobbying by groups like ASH.

What if SPCS campaigned for porn free workplaces AND sought government funding for it !! ASH receives about $600,00 dollars from government to employ five full-time and two part-time staff working for the lobby group ASH.

Section 3.1.6

This means any incidental activities that are lawful and happen to advance ASH’s goals can be deemed as legitimate charitable acts: a blanket catch-all defence based on a catch-all objective.

Section 3.17

In February 2011 SPCS added an equivalent object – s. 2(g) – to its constitution. See www.societies.govt.nz  (Inc. Soc. No. 217833).

Conclusions

The government supports lobby group ASH New Zealand Inc. to the tune of about $600,000 per year – to pursue its [ASH’s] primary purpose of promoting the adoption by the community of the Society’s particular point of view on health issues (use of tobacco) of concern to the Society. Educating New Zealanders about the harmful nature of active and passive smoking on health has involved ASH in significant lobbying and political advocacy over the years leading to legislative changes.

For many New Zealanders in the Christian community in particular, the non-smoking message message advanced by ASH is in line with their values/moral viewpoint. Political advocacy plays a significsant part in all ASH activities as recognised in its objects.

Most of ASH’s gross income (i.e. 70%) for the financial year ending 30 June 2011 was spent on the wages and salaries of five full-time staff and two part-timers (total 234 hours per week).

The SPCS fully supports the good work carried out by this effective lobby group.