SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Schools at odds with parents over HIV information obligation

by Leave a Comment

The New Zealand AIDS Foundation, a registered charity, says it is against the law to require families to disclose a child’s status.

Parents of children with HIV are under no legal obligations to inform their child’s school – despite several schools having a policy insisting that they do.

About 50 children enrolled in schools have HIV, according to Shaun Robinson, executive director of the charity.

The Herald conducted an online search of schools after revelations a New Zealand father who had refused to seek treatment for his 9-year-old son, who has HIV, was being taken to court by a district health board.

The board is seeking guardianship of the boy so treatment can be administered. The boy’s father has not told him, or his school, that he has HIV.

A number of schools – primary, intermediate and colleges – state on their websites that head staff must be notified of any child with HIV.

One school said the principal, board of trustees and the school’s guidance counsellor should know if a child was carrying HIV. Other schools’ websites said they would not exclude or discriminate against children with HIV/Aids or any other blood-borne viruses.

But the decision was up to the child’s parents, said Shaun Robinson.

Source: NZ Herald on line 9/02/15.

Full story: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11398630

 

Registered charities and the proposed Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct and Register of Lobbyists

by Leave a Comment

Under legislation proposed by Green MP Ms Ms Holly Walker, people who receive pay for lobbying MPs about laws or policies and who fail to register with the Attorney-General as paid lobbyists, could face criminal charges. The Lobbying Disclosure Bill, drawn from the parliamentary ballot on 21 April 2012, seeks to bring transparency to the activities of all paid lobbyists who attempt to sway and influence legislative processes by communicating with MPs. The bill proposes that the Auditor-General be empowered to investigate any alleged breaches of a Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct, which all paid lobbyists must agree to and sign, before they can lawfully engage in the lobbying of MPs. The Auditor-General will also be empowered to remove or suspend persons from a Register of Lobbyists if they breach the Code of Conduct.

Ms Walker wants regular statistics to be gathered on all paid lobbyists and the data regularly collated and reviewed, so the public, government officials and a host of enforcement agencies can closely scrutinise all their activities.

If her proposed bill, as drafted, passes into law, charities registered with the Charities Commission, such the the New Zealand Aids Foundation (NZAF), that are heavily engaged in political advocacy and lobbying AND receive significant government funding (see below); will need to have all and every one of their paid lobbyists sign a Lobbyists’ Code of [ethical] Conduct and register their personal details on the Register of Lobbyists.

Failure to do so prior to watching a rugby match from a NZAF-sponsored corporate box, or watching a NZAF-sponsored modelling pageant, alongside any MP or MPs, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation or sexuality; might lead to an unauthorised NZAF lobbyist having criminal charges being laid against him or her. Such unauthorised lobbyists attending a Big Gay Out event or a Hero Parade, who might be photographed or filmed arm-in-arm with an MP, whilst indulging in “political advocacy,” may face the prospect of being charged with criminal activity (lobbying).

Once charged, the NZAF charity worker accused would be required in make a credible defence to the Attorney-General, disclosing the range of presumably “gay” friendly legislative issues discussed with the friendly MP, and the methods used in the lobbying campaign, if any.

Authorised NZAF lobbyists who face charges over alleged breaches of the Code  will have to rely on the official records made of their lobbying encounters as recorded by the friendly MPs as well as their own diary records and any corroborating evidence provided by Big Gay-Out/Hero Parade participants/witnesses.

(NZAF, a registered charity [CC22230], which received $4,112,376 in government funding/contracts, and $342,029 in other grants/sponsorship in the financial year ending 30 June 2011, has “40-something staff throughout the country” according to one NZAF official. No figures have been provided as to how many of these are paid lobbyists. $2,564,846 was spent by NZAF on salaries/wages in 2010/2011. See www.charities.govt.nz ).

The Auditor-General would need to scrutinise the lobbying activities of registered charities like NZAF, if the latter’s paid staff were charged with unlawful lobbying, and refer offending paid charity workers to the police if they breached the new law. The Bill requires a report on any suspended or deregistered paid lobbyist to be reported to Parliament, as well as all investigations of such breaches to be undertaken.

Given that the Auditor-General is an MP, he or she will have to be very, very, careful in all dealings with undercover paid lobbyists, particularly when attending highly-visible social events, if the bill passes into law.

Reference: Lobbying Disclosure Bill. In the name of Green Party MP, Ms Holly Walker.

http://www.greens.org.nz/bills/lobbying-disclosure-bill

NZAF – political advocacy and opposition to HIV disclosure ruling by Court

by Leave a Comment

NZ Aids Foundation wants ethical-legal balance on disclosure of HIV (Opinion: The Dominion Post, 16 March, 2012, p. B7)

“The very real risk of changing the legal precedent is that it will make people who think they may have contracted HIV afraid to come forward to test for fear that they will face serious prosecution and stigma.” Shaun Robinson, executive director of the registered charity NZAF

The NEW ZEALAND Aids Foundation (NZAF), a registered charity with the Charities Commission, has spoken out yet again against the major legal precedent established by the recent Court of Appeal ruling concerning HIV status disclosure, ACC compensation and a clarification of the nature of “sexual violation”.

The NZAF quarter-page contribution to the debate written by its executive director Shaun Robinson involves “the perpetual advocacy of a particular point of view on moral [ethical] issues,” [to use a phrase coined by the Charities Commission] being that of NZAF. At least 30 registered charities have supported the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

The public are well aware that NZAF is a registered charity committed to “the perpetual advocacy of a particular point of view on ethical [i.e. moral] issues” – (c.f. “propaganda” trusts as they are sometimes termed by the Charities Commission et al.).

The focus of NZAF in the present debate is primarily on the so-called ‘rights’ of “gay” or “bisexual persons” who have been diagnosed HIV-positive to withhold that personal information from their sex-partners, despite the fact that there is a very real risk of the transmission of the deadly virus to their partners via anal and vaginal intercourse, especialy when unprotected sex is engaged in. [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

 

Sexual Abuse Services and other registered charities support Court of Appeal HIV + ruling

by Leave a Comment

Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint programme has reported that Sexual Abuse Services nationwide are backing a Court of Appeal decision (KSB vs ACC) issued on Monday which ruled a woman had the right to ACC compensation for the mental stress suffered, after finding out a man she had been having unprotected sex with had HIV. He had failed to inform her [in the course of their four month relationship] that he had been diagnosed HIV-positive (“hiding HIV a sexual violation”).

There are at least ten separate charities registered with the Charities Commission that offer sexual abuse services.

Checkpoint included brief comments from the Chief Executive of Victim Support Sertvices and the National coordinator of the Rape Crisis Collective on the same matter and both stated clearly that their respective organisations are  backing the Court of Appeal ruling.

There are ten charities registered with the Charities Commission offering victim support services and seven registered charities in the Rape Crisis collective alone..

In total there are at least 30 charities registered with the Charities Commission working in the areas of sexual abuse prevention, rape crisis and victim support that have backed the Court of Appeal ruling. Only  one registered charity – The NZ Aids Foundation – has spoken out publicly against what has beeen described in the media as a “major precedent in NZ law” created by this Court of Appeal ruling. [Read more…]