SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

SPCS Objectives from its Constitution – Incorporated Society No. 217833

by Leave a Comment

2. The objects for which the Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”) is established are:

(a) To encourage self-respect and the dignity of the human person, made in the image of God.

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

(c) To promote wholesome personal values, including strong family life and the benefits of lasting marriage as the foundation for stable communities.

(d) To focus attention on the harmful nature and consequences of sexual promiscuity, obscenity, pornography, violence, fraud, dishonesty in business, exploitation, abuse of alcohol and drugs, and other forms of moral corruption.

(e) To foster public awareness of the benefits to social, economic and moral welfare of the maintenance and promotion of good community standards, including supporting enforcement agencies to uphold such standards as set out in law and encourage constructive debate and discussion in this area.

(f) To support responsible freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.

(g) To raise money that will be used, under the control of the executive, to promote the moral and spiritual welfare of sectors of society that need special help and to advance the charitable objects of the Society (a) to (f).

“Say NO to ‘gay marriage’ Christians must stand firm” – call to readers of Challenge Weekly (owned by charity)

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 half of its recent front page to a report on a ‘survey’ it carried out concerning opinions on two draft bills being prepared by two MPs on ‘gay marriage’. On page 4 it has a report republished from UK Christian Today: “Pro marriage couple receive hate mail: Online bulling for traditional stance [taken on marriage].” (Challenge Weekly 9 July 2012)

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 newspaper it owns reports:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the general consensus of the majority of people Challenge Weekly approached for comment on what appears to be growing support for “gay marriage”.

“Green Party MP Kevin Hague and Labour MP Louisa Wall both plan to draft bills supporting ‘same-sex marriage’ and a TVNZ poll showed majority support for a legal change to allow “gay” marriage. Another poll conducted in June by Herald-Digipoll, of 750 people, saw over 50 per cent of respondents in support of legalising gay marriage.

The report then goes on to reflect the views of three well-known Christian leaders on the proposed bills: former National Party MP Rev Graeme Lee (who says he is “outraged“), leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig (who says he is “opposed“) and former MP Gordon Copeland (who says he is “concerned“).

Mr Colin Craig is reported as saying:

“This debate is purely and simply about who can use the word marriage. There are many interested parties in this debate. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman has significance culturally, historically, religiously and morally for many New Zealanders.”

[Comment: The Society for Promotion of Community Standards Inc. (“SPCS”), a registered charity (CC20268) has as one of its objects: “To promote the benefits of lasting marriage, strong family life and wholesome personal values as the foundation for stable communities”. Naturally SPCS will be taking an active interest in the ongoing debate on the legal definition of the term “marriage”. Prime Minister John Key has called on the public to engage in constructive debate on the issue, a call made following President Barack Obama’s recent declaration of his ‘revised’ stance on the matter. It is noteworthy that Challenge Publishing Society Ltd, a registered charity, has taken such an active interest in this subject, even though it is controversial, and has pitched its call to its readership – “SAY NO”.

Reference:

Challenge Weekly, July 9, 2012 Vol 70 Iss 25. pp. 1, 4.

Form speaks out

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2375-forum-speaks-out-.html

Forum to confront ‘sex ed’

http://www.challengeweekly.co.nz/component/content/article/39-top-stories/2333-forum-to-confront-sex-ed-.html

 

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)

The unlawful actions of public authorities seeking to stifle “the right to freedom of expression”

by Leave a Comment

The Society’s sixth object from section 2 of its Constitution deals with the principle of the human “right to freedom of expression” and it was approved as a “charitable purpose” by the New Zealand Charities Commission, when it was registered as a charity on 17 December 2007. (The Commission was disestablished on 1 July 2012 and “Charities” has now been absorbed into the Department of Internal Affairs).

The Society’s Rules (“objects”) state:

2. (f) “To support responsible freedom of expression which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people”.

What is the Society’s rationale and basis for having such an object?

For an answer to this question one needs to look no further than sections 13 & 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 which states:

Section 13: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.

Section 14: Freedom of Expression

  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. [Emphasis added]

The principle of the human “right to freedom of expression” is found in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) signed by member states on 4 November 1950.

ARTICLE 10.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprise.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 10 (1) focuses on and specifically addresses the unlawful activities of any “public authority” (e.g. a Crown entity) that attempts (whether openly or by stealth) to stifle “free speech”, by means of – for example: limiting and prescribing robust debate, and harassing and victimizing individuals and groups that seek to express a viewpoint that authorities disagree with, or consider too controversial to be aired.

Pandering to the strident and relentless bleatings of certain narrow-minded interest groups, or driven by arguably defective ideologies that authorities consider “politically correct”; such campaigns of harassment by public authorities propel the spirits of these unjust instigators of corruption to their zenith; in the ‘sure knowledge’ that they are doing the work of ‘God’ or His ‘equivalent’ – the Crown Entity or some public authority to which they are dutifully behoven.

In attempting to pander to the relentless litany of complaints from opponents of “free speech”, these quisling operatives within what used to be honourably called “the public service departments”, deviate from the universally held principles set out in Article 10(1) of the ECHR and other equivalent laws and statutes (see below), committing unlawful acts that warrant full exposure before the Courts.

Common sense dictates the principles set out in Article 10(2).

In the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 (“BORA”) which upholds the “right of freedom of expression”, limitations to such “freedom” are set out that are identical to those in 10(2).

BORA states:

  • Section 5: Justified limitations

    • Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

  • Section 6. Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred.
  • Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is consistent with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.

The SPCS has included in its object 2(f) the following check to offensive and unlawful activities that some would seek to justify on the grounds of their “right to freedom of expression”: ….

“…. [that] which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people.”

These words act as an effective couterbalance to the “right to freedom of expression” found in BORA. They summarise the responsibilities of citizens to uphold all other relevant enanctments so that in effect any one (and ALL) of their actions, as expressed by SPCS, is limited to one “which does not injure the public good by degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people”.

The SPCS draws its reference to the concept of “injury to the public good” and the effect of “degrading, dehumanising or demeaning individuals or classes of people” from section 2 of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 (“FVPCA”, in which “objectionable” content is clearly defined.

The so-called “deeming provisions” found in s. 2(2) of this Act set out the basis upon which content (depicted behaviour in films, books etc) is deemed “objectionable” by the Chief Censor’s Office, and consequently can be banned. Hardcore pornography that degrades, dehumanises and demeans the class of humanity we define as women (based on gender) is regularly banned by the censors. Some porn companies actively seek to import such material that pushes to the limits the boundaries set in law to control such content matter.

Section 6 of BORA in effect ‘trumps’ all other constraints that public authorities may dearly wish to impose on individuals and groups by their appealing to other enactments (e.g. Charity Law) to restrict “freedom of expression”.

Prior to about October 2000, Commissioners of the Charity Commission (England and Wales) were required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was not directly applicable until the Human Rights Act 1988 (HRA) was in force (about October 2000). (see Decision re Church of Scientology [England and Wales]).

It is somewhat ironic that so many charities championing “human rights” and engaging in blatant “political advocacy” in order to advance their messages in England and Wales, could well face the vicious  tourniquet applied by Charity Commissioners, determined to muzzle them from speaking out against the harassment and discrimination of vulnerable minority classes such as Christians.

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is embodied in section 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

There will always be those who cannot cope with others expressing sincerely held opinions that differ from their own.

International law is very clear about the rights of any person to declare such opinions or beliefs without interference from others including public authorities.

References:

1. Council of Europe: The European Convention on Human Rights. Rome 4 November 1950

and its Five Protocols

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

2. New Zealand Bill of Rights 1980

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_bill+of+rights_resel_25_h&p=1

Why we should stop teens looking at internet porn – The Telegraph – Opinion by British doctor Max Pemberton

by Leave a Comment

Internet porn is hazardous to teenagers, argues British doctor Max Pemberton. Their brains aren’t built to make the connection between impulse and consequences. Dr Starmer’s comments are timely, coming just after a 14-year old British boy … was found guilt of raping a 4-year old girl. The judge [at sentencing, stated] that the boy had been “sexualised by the corruption of pornography”.

Why we should stop teens looking at internet porn (Opinion piece republished from The Telegraph by The Dominion Post, Opinion, 11 July, 2012, p. A13.

Computers have radically altered the way that humans interact, and inevitably some view the changes with suspicion. That doesn’t make those people Luddites, because there are times when it seems right to question certain changes in society brought about by technology. Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said last week he was worried about new research that suggests that teenage relationships are becoming more abusive. He blamed this trend on the ready access to internet pornography.

Was he being an old fuddy-duddy? It’s an important question because it has serious ramifications for ideas surrounding censorship and choice on the internet. If correct, the research he referred to means that technology is having an adverse effect on the younger generation, altering aspects of their behaviour towards each other as sexual beings.

Starmer’s comments are timely, coming just after a 14?year-old boy was freed and given a three-year supervised community order after he was found guilty of raping a four-year-old girl. The judge justified the sentence by saying that the boy had been “sexualised by the corruption of pornography”.

Can this be correct? Can we really blame pornography? As uncomfortable as it makes me, I agree with the judge’s decision and Starmer’s concerns – and it’s all because of a bit of brain just behind our forehead called the prefrontal cortex. This blob of neurones is what makes us more than just animals. It’s involved in a dizzying range of functions that most adults take for granted. It is the seat for impulse control and delaying gratification; foreseeing and judging consequences of behaviour; predicting outcomes; forming strategies and planning; modulating emotions; inhibiting inappropriate behaviour and initiating appropriate behaviour. It’s involved in expressing our personality and orchestrates our thoughts and actions.

It is, in short, not just the part of the brain that makes us human and integrates us socially, but it also makes us, us. And when considering the impact of viewing graphic pornography on youngsters, this bit of the brain becomes very important.

Over the past few years, there have been various scare stories claiming that the internet alters the developing brains of children. This is largely piffle – no such clear, objective evidence exists. Playing Super-Mario isn’t going to turn a child’s brain to mush.

But that doesn’t mean all is well in cyberspace. The very danger of youngsters being exposed to sexually graphic films and images actually has nothing to do with the internet changing their brains, but with the fact that their brains are changing of their own accord anyway. If you’re under 25, you’re not going to like the next bit. But don’t blame me, blame your brain. The prefrontal cortex is the last part of the brain to develop fully and is still developing well into a person’s twenties. That is why teenagers behave the way they do.

With an immature prefrontal cortex, they can understand that a type of behaviour is dangerous or wrong, but they lack the neural circuitry to modulate these thoughts and process them the way an adult does. If parental instruction is missing and their only point of reference is gratuitous pornography, many youngsters will develop a warped, distorted understanding of sex – sometimes with tragic results.

While an adult can view such images and, usually, understand that they are a fantasy and not a blueprint for human relations, children and teenagers struggle with this. It’s actually not their fault; their brains simply aren’t fully formed. We’d never expect a newborn baby to tell us what it wanted for supper, and that is because those parts of its motor cortex and the speech areas of its brain haven’t developed yet. It’s the same with complex social and moral development in older children. Just because teenagers look and sound like adults, we should not assume they think like them.

There is therefore a genuine, scientific reason why we should ensure that graphic – both sexual and violent – content is carefully restricted. This isn’t about being puritanical, reactionary or patronising. It’s just accepting the science. The inevitable conclusion is that there should be an opt-in clause to view adult content on the internet. Though I loathe the idea of restrictions, in the case of pornography we do teenagers a disservice if we don’t place constraints on what they can view online.

I know this won’t make me popular with teenagers. But when their prefrontal cortex develops, they’ll understand.

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women_shealth/9385158/Whatever-Victorias-Secret-model-Miranda-Kerr-says-dont-be-a-pain-about-epidurals.html