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).

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”.

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.

Promotion of the “moral welfare” of children and young persons

by Leave a Comment

In 1952 the Minister of Child Welfare in the McLarty government of Western Australia, Arthur Watts, introduced amendments to the Child Welfare Act to widen the definition of “neglect” to include children “living under such conditions as to indicate that the mental, physical or moral welfare of the chid is likely to be in jeopardy” [emphasis added]. These amendments were enacted into law with strong support from Liberal Premier Sir Ross LcLarty’s government.

The concept of the “moral welfare” or “moral well-being” of children and young persons is well-documented in case law, as is the nature of activities that when promoted or supported (AND even when there is a tendency to promotion or support), are “likely to be injurious to the public good” or “likely to [put] in jeopardy” the “moral welfare” of  members of the public, including vulnerable children and young persons (see below).

It is the ever-present threat of “likely” harm and injury (mental, physical and moral) and their far-reaching negative inter-generational consequences, as well as the accepted Judaeo-Christian belief in human dignity (“Man made in the image of God” – often not acknowledged), that have undoubtedly undergirded successive governmental decisions (driven perhaps in part by quickened consciences and pragmatism) to enact child protection and censorship laws to safeguard our precious children and young persons from the dangers of exposure to child abuse, family violence, depiction of gratuitous violence and inappropriate sexual content in the media and exposure to morally corrupting hardcore pornography etc. [Read more…]

Promoting moral welfare: reflections on true repentence

by Leave a Comment

With the constant revelations highlighted in the secular media of scandals (sexual infidelities, corruption, financial frauds, etc.) involving professing “Christian” bishops, priests, ministers, pastors and church workers, we must ask ourselves:

How can those genuinely seeking to promote the “moral welfare” of society based on a Judaeo-Christian spiritual framework, continue to do so with integrity, when so many non-Christians accuse them too of sheer hypocrisy and deceit based on the wrongdoing of others? 

Surely it is important and fair-minded to first ask the necessary question: Are the “Christian” individuals and groups actually exposed for proven immorality and corruption, really Christian at all? And second: Are those non-Christians who so boldly point the accusing finger, free from hypocrisy themselves and are they entitled to ‘throw the first stone’?  

Witness the case of Rev. Jonathan Kirkpatrick, 53, a former Auckland University of Technology (AUT) staff member, who recently admitted defrauding the AUT of more than half a million dollars. [Read more…]