SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Complaint against Dominion Post cartoon rejected by Press Council

by Leave a Comment

A COMPLAINT about a Dominion Post cartoon depicting Social Development Minister Paula Bennett alongside a Nazi concentration camp doctor has not been upheld by the Press Council.

The Trace Hodgson cartoon, published on May 14, depicted Ms Bennett in a dress emblazoned with skulls and introduced her “new consultant”, Joseph Mengele. The minister had just announced Government plans to offer free long-term contraception to women beneficiaries and their teenage daughters.

Mengele was a doctor at Auschwitz, known as the Angel of Death. He was infamous for performing experiments on camp inmates. In the cartoon, Mengele was shown in Nazi uniform, saying he was looking forward to “cutting costs with some social development experiments”.

Richard Hall complained to The Dominion Post, saying the cartoon was unclever, unfair, distasteful and highly offensive.

Mr Hall then complained to the Press Council, saying no comparisons could legitimately be drawn between the minister’s policies and Mengele’s acts.

Editor Bernadette Courtney replied to the Press Council, saying cartoons were an important part of any newspaper. Not everyone agreed with them. The points made by letter writers about the Mengele cartoon were noted and the column reflected all views.

She was sorry Mr Hall and others were offended but said free speech incorporated the freedom to be cutting and unkind.

In its comment, the Press Council said it strongly supported the right of newspaper cartoonists to express their views, particularly when their work featured on a page clearly labeled “Opinion”. The majority of council members felt there were sufficient parallels in social and reproductive engineering to warrant the reference made in the cartoon .

The cartoon did not cross the threshold of going beyond what was acceptable as opinion, and the complaint was not upheld.

Source: The Dominion Post, Monday, 9 July 2012.

Father worries over son’s exposure to Rainbow Youth Inc. “alternative sexuality education package”

by Leave a Comment

Rainbow Youth Inc. – [a registered charity that received $105,931 in government grants/contracts in the last financial year] – has delivered an “alternative sexuality education … package” to 14 and 15-year old school students promoting “gay marriage”, that worries the father of a school boy (his son) who attended it. Two presenters identified themselves as lesbians and said that they were attracted to “transexual girls”. (Fairfax NZ News Story 8 July 2012 below).

A father is concerned his son attended alternative sexuality education classes at school that explored ideas like transsexuality without his knowledge or permission.

However the Rainbow Youth organisation’s education coordinator stands by the presentations, sayings its education package has been evaluated and is backed up by research.

Earlier this year Rainbow Youth presented two one-hour sessions to the 15-year-old’s class. Auckland-based Rainbow Youth provides “support, information, advocacy and education for queer young people” and has been delivering education workshops for more than 10 years.

One presentation was about gender and sexual identity and the other addressed issues such as homophobia and bullying.

The teenage boy said two of the presenters introduced themselves to the class as lesbians, one who was attracted to transsexual girls, while the third said he had been a woman attracted to women but became a man “with a vagina”.

The teenager said the first lesson was “OK” and the message was that there were multiple gender identities. But he felt the second lesson was “quite weird”. It looked at homophobia and how society treated people labelled as “other”.

The class heard two of the presenters’ coming-out stories, including how one had grappled with discrimination and deciding if they were male or female. “[The transsexual speaker] was saying things like, ‘it’s legal to have a physical relationship with your cousin but it’s illegal to have gay marriage’. And things like, if you’re really homophobic you usually turn out gay.

“I think they were trying to say that being gay is all good but to me and quite a few of the people in my class, it came across like they were saying ‘it’s great and you guys should follow on with it’.”

His father assumed, “rightly or wrongly”, that sex education would be more generic and mainstream not “the weird and wonderful of the world’s sexuality”.

“I don’t think that is the right thing to be exposing 14 and 15-year-old kids to.”

Rainbow Youth’s education coordinator Priscilla Penniket said the organisation went into schools by invitation, and demand for presentations were at capacity.

She estimated they were involved with 30 of Auckland’s almost 200 high schools. The idea behind the presentations wasn’t to challenge students she said, but to follow three teaching frameworks: critical thinking, self reflection and the coming-out narratives that personalised a theoretical idea.

Asked if students ever reacted badly she said, “Depending on the high school there’s varying levels of homophobia which can sometimes be really [emotionally] unsafe for the volunteers coming out who are telling their story.”

She denied volunteers were encouraging homosexuality, or saying homophobics were gay. Penniket said research had proven that when people were overly homophobic it was often because they were hiding something such as their sexual identity or the identity of someone they knew.

Source: Stuff.co.nz

Fairfax NZ News Story – ‘Rainbow’ class worries father. By Imogen Neal

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7242226/Rainbow-class-worries-father

Note:

Rainbow Youth Inc. was registered as a charity (Reg. No. CC24284) with the Charities Commission on 13 May 2008. In an average week it has two employees working full-time and one part-time. A total of 110 hours of paid work is engaged in by its three employees on average, each week. Its total gross income for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 was $137,873 and it spent $138,012 on wages over this same period. Its deficit for 2010/11 was $137,873. (Source: www.charities.govt.nz)

Monarch butterflies and the fragile roots of New Zealand Charity Law

by Leave a Comment

“It is difficult to see how animal charities are within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth I” (The Law and Practice Relating to Charities, 4th Edition. Hubert Picarda QC., p. 221. f.n. 11).

The preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601, known as the  Statute of Elizabeth, attempts to classify or provide guidelines for the identification of charitable purposes and it was not, even in 1601, an exhaustive list of charitable purposes. Trusts for the advancement of religion were omitted as were some other trusts that were considered to be adequately administered and so not requiring the protection of the Act (for example, some educational institutions).

In Pemsel’s case in 1891, Lord Macnaghten classified the categories of charitable purposes under four heads:

“Charity in its legal sense comprises four principal divisions: trusts for the relief of poverty; trusts for the advancement of education; trusts for the advancement of religion; and trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community not falling under any of the preceding heads.” [Income Tax Special Purposes Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] All ER Rep 28 at 55; [1891] AC 531].

Hubert Picarda QC refers to animal charities as an “anomaly”.

“No general principle should be deduced from animal charities which are an anomaly.” (p. 221).

Not surprisingly, he makes no mention in his work of charities devoted to any “animal” belonging to any class of the phylum arthropoda, such as the Insecta (insects), let alone any single species within any one of the many Orders of Insecta, such as the Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths).

One can only imagine the utter disbelief and ridicule that lawyers of the 17th 18th and 19th centuries familiar with Charity Law would have expressed, if they had been informed that Charity Commissioners were considering the approval of a Trust, devoted to the promotion and preservation of a butterfly species, as a registered charity with tax benefits. Such news would have no doubt generated teary-eyed mirth among the legal profession, at a time when poverty, famine, disease and lawlessness was widespread throughout Europe, and charities existed largely for the relief of the victims of society ills, the upholding of community standards and/or the moral and spiritual improvement of its citizens.

Our legal understanding  of what constitutes a “charitable purpose” remains very fragile – given that it rests on the preamble to a Statute that is over 400 years old. And yet today’s Charities officials employ the preamble classifications as though they are as rigid as the Laws of the Medes and Persians. Charities are assigned to one of the four stables, without any understanding or recognition that that some fit comfortably within two of more stables.

If we move forward 400 years from the charity classifications found in the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, to the present day charity law in New Zealand, we discover a Charities Act 2005, having been applied by the now disestablished Charities Commission, to legitimise two butterfly trusts as charities in 2007 and 2011.

The Monarch Butterfly NZ Trust was registered as a charity (CC11297) with the Charities Commission on 9 October 2007.

An Identical Trust (in terms of Trust Deed) – the Kapiti Monarch Butterfly Trust was registered as a charity (CC46929) with the Charities Commission on 22 September 2011.

The primary object of both Monarch Butterfly charities is:

(i) “To raise public awareness and increase biodiversity within New Zealand for the benefit of present and future New Zealanders”

What is startling to the legal mind, is how extremely BROAD this object is to have been accepted as a “charitable object” by the Charities Commission officials. And yet the Charities [Commission] guidelines urge prospective registration applicants for prospective charitable entities, to ensure that their objects for their Trusts or societies, are kept BROAD, in order to give sufficient scope to accommodate a range of activities (that serve to fulfil these BROAD charitable objects).

Biodiversityitself is such a BROAD term that it includes all of New Zealand’s fauna AND flora. Fauna is a very BROAD term as it includes all NZ animals, including its insects, worms, spiders, right down to single-celled animals. Likewise, flora is a very BROAD term as it includes all NZ trees, grasses,mosses right down to single-celled plants.

Both butterfly charities have as their next object, one that is so acutely narrow (in contrast to BROAD) as to make object (i) redundant in the sense that it cannot stand on its own and make any real practical sense. Object (ii) strictly limits the focus of the charitable activities to a mere handful of species within a tiny segment of the insect world (Lepidoptera – butterflies and moths). In fact the focus is so precise within that tiny segment as to specify only one species that charity workers are deeply concerned with – the Monarch Butterfly – one that is not even endemic to New Zealand, having spread over all the world’s main continents.

To be fair “other Lepidoptera species” are mentioned as part of the charity’s mission, but none are  specified. New Zealand only has a tiny number of butterfly species, and hundreds of moth species; and yet, to be frank, the Trust is focused on a few pretty butterflies. The preservation/protection of these few species can hardly be seen as impacting significantly or relevant to the maintenance of New Zealand’s total biodiversity.

The singling out of the Monarch butterfly as a worthy benefactor of the charity’s focus, is based purely, it would seem, on aesthetic bias, not plausible, rigorous scientific grounds relating to critical biodiversity preservation/retention considerations. Thus object (iii) states:

(iii) “to increase opportunities for members of communities and visitors to New Zealand to enjoy and experience the Monarch Butterfly and other Lepidoptera species as part of the natural environment” [Emphasis added]

It is laudable that some people set up butterfly enclosures, disperse butterfly favourite food plants, study their ecology etc  so visitors can experience and enjoy butterflies, but lawyers and academics with a keen interest in charity law are now asking all across New Zealand: how does this ‘Lepidopteristic activity’ fit within any of the four charity heads?

Non-Lepidopterists may happen to have an acute fascinations and passion for cockroaches or bed bugs. Will their applications to register charities devoted to the care, nurture, promotion, and study of these wondrous critters, in order to advance parallel “objects” to the Lepidopterists; receive the same warm approval from the Charities Registration officials as experienced by Lepidopterists, to set up their cockroach and bedbug charities ?

Perhaps, the answer is found in knowing whether or not such Charities officials find deep aesthetic pleasures in reflecting on the exquisite beauty of such wondrous critters and can envisage visitors to our fair land sharing such delights.

Reference

http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap2.htm

Photo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monarch_In_May.jpg

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)