SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Society advancing “mental or moral improvement of man” (ruled a charitable purpose) is serving a “public benefit”

by Leave a Comment

The Court held on the evidence that the teachings of Rudolf Steiner advanced by the Anthroposophical Society of Great Britain were directed to “the mental or moral improvement of man,” an aim which constituted a “charitable” purpose, and that its activities served a “public benefit”.

Source: Analysis of the law underpinning Public Benefit and the Advancement of Moral or Ethical Belief Systems.

Legal Analysis by UK Charities Commission (Annex, Digest of Cases) pp. 8-9. September 2008.

Re Price [1943] 1 Ch. 422-435.

A bequest was made to the Anthroposophical Society in Great Britain [“ASGB”] to be “used at the discretion of the chairman and executive council of the society for carrying on the teachings of the founder, Dr. Rudolf Steiner” (variously described by Steiner as “spiritual science” and “anthroposophy” – the wisdom of mankind).

The society was an unincorporated voluntary association founded in 1923 at a meeting at which Dr. Rudolf Steiner was appointed president for life. Its constitution was divided into three parts, statutes, rules and bye-laws. The statutes were in the following terms:

“2. The aim of the society is to form, in the words of Rudolf Steiner, a union of human beings who desire to further the life of the soul, both in the individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the spiritual world.

“The society will endeavour to fulfil its tasks:

“(a) by providing adequate facilities for individual study and mutual aid in the study of spiritual science;

“(b) by encouraging practical activities which will bring into the civilisation of our time the beneficial results of spiritual science….

“5. The society is an entirely public organization and in no sense a secret society. It was averse to any sectarian tendency and does not consider politics to be among its tasks. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever should be excluded from the society.”

In his affidavit, Mr Harwood, who is the teacher in the principal school conducted on Rudolf Steiner’s education principles, stated:

“The teachings of Steiner are directed to the extension of knowledge of the spiritual in man and the universe generally and of the interaction of the spiritual and the physical. He sought to show both how this knowledge could be acquired and how it could be applied for the benefit of man in a wide range of activities. It could be acquired, he taught, by the development of consciousness and with it of the perceptive faculties. He expounded a theory of knowledge, the philosophical basis of which is set forth by Steiner in certain of his books, in particular The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. In such books he sought to show the  the capacity of man for spiritual development leading to wider knowledge of the spiritual or supersensible in the world at large. In other books Steiner taught a method of mental and moral discipline designed to train the imaginative, creative and devotional faculties of the mind and so to develop the faculties of spiritual intuition and perception…. Steiner taught and developed the application of this knowledge to religion and education generally including medicine, art and agriculture.”

Evidence [was provided] that the sole purpose for which the society [ASGB] actually carried on was to carry on the teachings of Dr Rudolf Steiner. But this was not the only object that the society had or could have (power to amend). It [the bequest] was held not to be an absolute gift to society. But, even if there was a trust, it did not tend to a perpetuity since there was nothing to prevent members from spending it immediately for the benefit of the class intended. There was the necessary certainty as to the purpose on which the bequest was to be expended (so the court could come to a conclusion as to the propriety of any item of expenditure that might be challenged). The area and content of Steiner’s teachings were not so vague and indeterminate as to impede this.

[The Court] “Held [on the evidence presented] (1) that, under the terms of the will, … the bequest was valid” and ”
(2) that it was a valid charitable gift.”  The teachings of Rudolf Steiner were taken to be directed to the mental or moral improvement of man.

Source: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/guidance/pbmora.pdf

Comments by SPCS:

The aim of ASGM (quoted above) is extremely broad and embodied concepts which would be considered vague and incomprehensible to mainstream science today, such as the concept that society itself, in contrast to the individual, actually possesses a “soul” whose spiritual life, can be furthered, enhanced and enriched through the study of “spiritual science”. While some philosophers such as Teilhard de Chardin have espoused the concept of a “world soul”, few philosophers would treat such an extrapolation of the individual soul to the “soul” of a society or civilisation, as nothing more than metaphor or literary devise, even if they did hold to the metaphysical reality of an individual human soul.

Mainstream scientists find terms such as “spiritual science” to be an oxymoron: science can only deal with facts that are verifiable applying the empirical method, while scientific theories are required to pass the falsifiability test. The notion of a “spiritual” world is utterly alien to the language of discourse in mainstream science.

Despite all these reservations, the court found Steiner’s teachings were directed to the mental or moral improvement of man. The Anthroposophical Society therefore, in promoting the “beneficial results of spiritual science”, clearly qualified as a genuine charity advancing charitable purposes.

The second means listed by ASGB to achieve this aim – “encouraging practical activities which will bring into the civilisation of our time the beneficial results of spiritual science” (emphasis added) is very similar to those of SPCS, which include:

2(a) “to encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person made in the image of God”… 2(b) to promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation …. 2(c) … to promote the benefits of lasting marriage….  wholesome personal values… etc.

All SPCS objects presuppose the notion that society stands to see beneficial results if individuals and groups embrace a lifestyle and behaviour that is based on a good moral foundations and one that aspires to a “spiritual” understanding of relationships both with fellow-man and his Creator (see s. 2[a] – “The human person made in the image of God”).

Like ASGB, SPCS is an a public organisation and is in no sense a secret society. It is averse to any sectarian tendency and has never considered party politics to be among its tasks. A dogmatic position in any sphere whatsoever is excluded from the SPCS, in the sense that it recognises the merits of “responsible freedom of expression” (s. 2[f] of its objects) that derives from the celebration of free will as one of the gifts humans are endowed with by their Creator.

Steiner taught a “method of mental and moral discipline” in the belief that adherence to it by individuals would benefit them and society at large. SPCS has as one of its objects: “To foster public awareness of the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of community standards …” For individuals to adhere to community standards a certain degree of “mental and moral discipline” is obviously required. Legislation establishes the boundaries in law, and each time enforcement is applied to ensure adherence to these limits, society, in effect expresses its desire that its citizens apply “mental and moral discipline” to advance the “public good”.

SPCS has objects that are in part directed to the “mental or moral improvement of man” – a broad concept no doubt – but one that seeks to promote “the public good”. For example, by advancing its case for “the recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages” (s. 2[b] of its objects), SPCS is merely holding up the same ideals as embodied in, for example, the Hippocratic Oath, that  all physicians and healthcare professionals swear to uphold when carrying out their duties, and The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, which must be adhered to by all member states.

Reference: In re Price

Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company, Limited v. Harwood.

J. Cohen 1943.

 

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc – registered charity engaging in political advocacy

by Leave a Comment

The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc. is listed alongside the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) in The Encyclopedia of New Zealand under its section entitled “Cause Interest Groups“. Both are registered charities with the Charities Commission.

“Forest and Bird”, as it has come to be known in the media, was registered as a charity on 30 June 2008 (Reg. No. 26948) and one of its objectives is identical to that of  the SPCS (CC20268) – fund-raising so that it can advance its objectives. SPCS which was registered as a charity on 17 December 2007 also raises funds (see s. 2[g] of SPCS constitution). Both entities are incorporated societies. SPCS was registered as an incorporated society on 25 September 1975 (Reg. No. 217833).

Forest and Bird objectives are aimed at saving society from the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of the physical and biological environment, with the consequent loss of invaluable species. SPCS objectives are centred on advancing spiritual and moral welfare and alerting the public to the negative impact of the degeneration and degradation of moral and community standards.

The Encyclopedia entry confirms that Forest and Bird is a lobbying group, heavily involved in political advocacy:

“Scenery preservation societies were formed in the 1880s to maintain town belts and urban reserves, and then began lobbying for the preservation of native forest in general. This led to the Scenery Preservation Act 1903, a landmark measure in protecting New Zealand’s heritage.

“In 1923, angered by the destruction of Kapiti Island’s natural ecosystem, Val Sanderson founded what became the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (later Forest and Bird). Since then the society has lobbied governments to protect endangered animal species and wild places. In 2011 its management team included a lawyer, marketing managers and professional lobbyists. It had 50 branches and 70,000 members and supporters.”

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/interest-groups/3

In the financial year ended 28 February 2011, Forest and Bird received grants and sponsorship totalling $1,459,709. It spent $2,248,348 of its gross income of $5,363,055 on salaries and wages. Its total expenses were $5,830,455 (source: www.charities.govt.nz).

The vigorous lobbying work undertaken by Forest and Bird – an environmental charity group – involves some of its officers having to regularly publicly criticise Ministers of the Crown, company officials, regional councillors and other public officials, over their policies, attitudes and actions. Some may well feel targeted and aggrieved to be singled out. Such ‘victims’ often like to remain hidden in anonymity behind their corporation structure or ministry machinery.

Robust debate is entered into by Forest and Bird and great efforts are engaged in to prod the consciences of some of these officials, to spur them into action to save the environment. Protest action is not foreign to Forest and Bird whose members have been known to trespass on private land by ‘nesting’ high in trees and chain themselves to earth-moving equipment to campaign against the logging of native forests. Such zeal is greatly admired by the environmental community and applauded by SPCS members.

Charities such as Forest and Bird must not be allowed to have their wings clipped by those seeking to stifle freedom of expression and who are determined to curtail robust public debate on ‘sensitive’ issues.

The moral and spiritual welfare of our physical and biological environment is worth upholding, as are the community and moral standards that have been the foundation of our society.

‘Sin Precinct’ warning over Chows’ brothel plan

by Leave a Comment

A 15-STOREY brothel complex in the heart of downtown Auckland would lead to an explosion of sexually transmitted diseases, child sex-slavery, moral bankruptcy, drug warfare and a curse on everyone in New Zealand, according to some of the submissions to Auckland Council on the proposal.

Of the 200 submissions on a proposed development called the Penthouse Club, across the road from SkyCity, almost every one was against the project. There was only one submission which even conditionally supported it.

The majority were concerned with issues of morality, criminality and health… [Read more…]

NZ Aids Foundation position on ‘rights’ of HIV-positive sex partner is “unconscionable”

by Leave a Comment

Nothing but truth for HIV sex partners.  The Dominion Post Editorial. March 125, 2012

“[The NZAF] position is a cop out … It is irresponsible and does nothing to engender confidence that [this registered charity] has the community health as its highest priority”

THE NZ AIDS FOUNDATION [a registered charity with the Charities Commission] supports the right of HIV-positive partners to conceal their condition from their sexual partners provided they use proper protection. It could not be more wrong.”

Everybody who enters into a sexual relationship has a fundamental right to be fully informded about any risk they might be exposing themselves to. HIV might not be the near-cerrtain death sentence it once was, and the risk of transmitting it through sex might be small with the right protection, but there is still a risk. Condoms can be faulty, they can break and can be ineffective if not properly used. It is unconscionable to advocate the right for somebody to expose another person to that risk without them knowing.

The Court of Appeal ruling that awarded ACC cover to a woman who suffered mental trauma after discovering she had been having unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man sets an important precedent in that regard. It opens the door to sexual violation charges in cases where people who have the disease fail to tell their partners.

Justin Dalley, the man at the centre of the case, knew he was HIV-positive, but deliberately withheld that from his partner till she was told by a mutual acquaintance. She was lucky not to contract the disease herself, and the six-month wait to be cleared caused her serious distress.

The issue for the Court of Appeal was not whether Dalley infected his victim, but whether she gave fully informed consent to the unprotected sex. She says that had she known he was HIV-positive, she would have refused. The court has found that Dalley’s failure to disclose his [HIV-positive] status nullified consent, and so was a sexual violation for the purposes of ACC cover.

To what extent it can be applied to criminal cases is yet to be tested. So too is the issue of whether it applies to other sexually-transmitted diseases and cases where people fail to disclose their status, but use protection to limit the chances of infecting their partner.

There is legal precedent on the latter question, set in another case involving Dalley and a second woman. He did not tell her he had HIV, but the district court found that by using a condom he had met his legal duty to take reasonable precautions to avoid infecting her.

Whether the Court of Appeal ruling affects that decision is not clear. In any case, it is almost ceretsain that if it is used as the basis to charge someone with sexual violation in the future, it will be challenged.

The Aids Foundation claims that allowing sexual violation charges against people who know they have HIV but fail to tell their sexusal partners will increase discrimination and lead to a “significant decrease” in testing. That is a cop-out. The Court of Appeal case was not about the rights of people with HIV, but the rights of those with whom they wish to have sex to have a full understanding of the possible consequences.

The Aids Foundation disagrees. It is happy for those who have HIV to keep that secret from their sexual partners, provided they use condoms and lubricant. Its position is irresponsible and does nothing to engender confidence that it has the community’s health as its highest priority.

Source: The Dominion Post Editorial. Thursday, March 15, 2012, p. B4. [Emphasis added]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/6575163/Editorial-Nothing-but-truth-for-HIV-lovers

 

Ethicists advocating infanticide open way to horrors of Nazism

by Leave a Comment

Karl du Fresne, a regular columnist for The Dominion Post, has written today:

When I read recently that two medical ethicists had suggested it should be legal to kill newborn babies, my first thought was that they must be anti-abortion campaigners choosing an unusually dramatic way to make their point.

After all, what’s the difference, ethically speaking, between aborting a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation or waiting until it’s born, then quietly suffocating it or administering a lethal injection? None that I can see.

That’s exactly the point made by doctors Francesca Minerva and Alberto Giubilini in a recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. As it turns out, the two ethicists are not opposed to abortion. Far from it. They are simply advancing, in a clinically dispassionate way, the argument that it doesn’t make any difference whether babies’ lives are terminated in the womb or after birth.

Newborns aren’t actual persons, they suggest, merely potential persons. Neither the foetus nor the newborn baby is a person with a moral right to life. Only actual persons can be harmed by being killed.

It’s a proposition that would shock decent people. Yet it exposes the fundamental flaw, both logical and moral, behind abortion laws such as those that apply in New Zealand.

Most people who think it’s OK to abort babies in the womb would recoil in horror at the thought of snuffing their lives out once they’ve been born.

But I ask again, what’s the difference? Some babies that are legally aborted under present law (there were 16,630 in 2010) have reached a stage in their development when they are capable, with intensive medical care, of surviving outside the womb.

Newborn babies also need intervention to survive. So at what point do we decide a baby has a right to life – at six months old, one year, only when it’s capable of feeding itself and walking?

No civilised society would countenance the killing of babies at any of these stages. It would equal the worst horrors of Nazism.

Yet the Australian state of Victoria already allows babies to be aborted right up to the time of birth and pro-abortion lobbyists would like the same law adopted here. It’s only a short step from there to infanticide.

And why not? After all, Minerva and Giubilini make it clear there is no ethical difference between killing babies in the womb and murdering them after birth. Any point after conception at which society decides it’s legally permissable to end their lives is entirely artificial and arbitrary.

One chilling argument advanced by the ethicists is that parents whose babies are born disabled without warning, as often happens frequently, should be able to have them killed.

A society that considers itself humane would draw back in horror from such a proposal, but it’s simply a logical extensioin of what we’re doing now.

Source: The Dominion Post. Tuesday, March 13, 2012.

Note: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (SPCS) has as one of its seven objects in its constitution:

Section 2(b) “To promote recognition of the sanctity of human life and its preservation in all stages.”

This written purpose has been approved by the Charities Commission, headed by Trevor Garrett, as a “charitable purpose”. The publication of the opinion piece above by Karl du Fresne is relevant to this “charitable purpose”.