SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

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).

Call from Family First NZ – A Registered Charity – For De-Funding of Sex Ed Programmes run by three charities

by Leave a Comment

MEDIA RELEASE: Family First NZ, [a registered charity – in a media release issued 1 July 2012], is calling for the government to withdraw funding of the Family Planning and Rainbow Youth’s sex education programmes, resources and websites which fail to tell the full facts and which compromise the concerns and wishes of parents, and the safety of young people. [Both the Family Planning Association and Rainbow Youth Inc. are lobby groups regularly involved in “political advocacy” and are also registered charities].

“Despite groups like Family Planning and Rainbow Youth being challenged by US psychiatrist Dr Miriam Grossman to a debate last week to defend their websites and pamphlets targeted at young people, they ran for cover. They also appeared to take down one of the offending websites during Dr Grossman’s visit,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Family First is especially concerned about websites such as curious.org.nz, theword.org.nz, getiton.co.nz and a number of Family Planning pamphlets.

“The current approach in NZ sows confusion about right and wrong and says the moral absolute is – use condoms. The government should fund evidence-based education resources which are approved by parents rather than saying one thing to parents and another to their children. Family Planning receives more than $11m from the government of which $2.6m is for education.”

A nationwide poll in January 2012 of 600 young people aged 15-21 found that only 19% supported just the ‘safe sex’ message currently being taught in schools, with one in three (34%) wanting ‘values, abstinence, and consequences such as pregnancy’ taught instead, and a further 42% asking for a combination of both – especially amongst older teens. A poll of parents in 2010 found that three out of four parents of young children want the abstinence message taught in sex education – with 69% of kiwis overall supporting the ‘wait’ message.

“This is a direct rebuke from young people to the ‘use a condom’ and ‘everyone’s doing it’ messages being pushed by groups like Family Planning, AIDS Foundation and Rainbow Youth,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“Many parents were rightly horrified last year when details of what was being taught in schools under the guise of ‘sex education’ surfaced. Judging by the results of the current approach – which is a good place to start – sex education has been an utter failure. New Zealand has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the OECD, our STD rates are out of control, and the number of teenage girls having abortions is tragically high.”

“For those youth who are sexually active, they are not being told the truth. Groups like the Family Planning Association and the AIDS Foundation are perpetuating the myth that as long as you use a condom, you can pretty well do what you like in terms of promiscuity, experimentation, and fringe behaviours – with little or no information on the physical or emotional ramifications or prevention of disease.”

In one example, a mixed class of boys and girls were asked by the AIDS Foundation [a government funded registered charity] if they had masturbated lately and were given condoms and strawberry-flavoured lubricant. They were also given a leaflet featuring graphic pictures, terms including “co*k” and “wa*k”, and advice on the best condoms. Reports last year highlighted that children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts as long as “she’s okay with it”. In other cases, 14-year-old girls are being taught how to put condoms on plastic penises, and one female teacher imitated the noises she made during orgasm to her class of 15-year-olds. One concerned father took his 12-year-old son out of a sex education class at his all-boy school after he came home upset about what had happened during one of the lessons. It included a question-and-answer session that focused on, “I have learned that my girlfriend has a thing called a clitoris. I really want to play with it. Is that okay?” The answer was: “Yes, if you ask her and she’s okay with it.”

“A government-funded organization should be willing and able to defend their ideology and services which the taxpayer funds. It is time the government held them accountable,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

Family First NZ website: www.familyfirst.org.nz

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.

 

New Charities Registration Board appointed

by Leave a Comment

Community and Voluntary Sector Minister Jo Goodhew announced today the members of the newly established Charities Registration Board.

From 1 July, the functions of the former Charities Commission will be undertaken by the Department of Internal Affairs.

“The new Charities Registration Board will be established on 1 July and will make independent decisions on applications from organisations that wish to register for charitable status,” Mrs Goodhew says.

“It will also decide the removal of charitable status from registered charities that do not continue to meet the necessary requirements.

“I am pleased to announce that I have appointed Roger Miller as Chair of the new Charities Registration Board.

“Mr Miller is a Wellington lawyer and Registered Trustee, whose specialisations include trust law and governance. He chairs the Scots College Foundation and the Porirua City Council Community Services Board and is a trustee of Performing Arts Foundation of New Zealand.”

The other two members of the Board are:

Caren Rangi, a chartered accountant and audit specialist from Napier. Ms Rangi has extensive community governance experience and is currently a board member of the Broadcasting Commission (NZ On Air) and a trustee of the Eastern and Central Community Trust.

Kirikaiahi Albert, a Wellington lawyer with experience in taxation, Treaty settlements and iwi governance. Ms Albert is active in the M?ori legal community, Wellington rugby league and international indigenous networks.

“Together the members bring the skills, experience and diversity necessary to fulfil the independent functions of the Board in a manner that over time will earn the confidence of the charitable sector and the New Zealand public.”

There will be no substantive changes for registered charities or applicants for registration arising from the transition to the new structure. Access to information about charities on the Charities Register and all the educational guidance developed for charities will continue to be available on the website www.charities.govt.nz.

Source: http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=38852

also:  http://feeds.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-charities-registration-board-appointed