SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

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

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)

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

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)

Promotion of mental or moral improvement as a general charitable purpose

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)

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

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”.

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

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).