Open Letter to Charities Commission on NCWNZ

Open Letter to the New Zealand Charities Commission on the proposed revocation of the National Council of Women's Charitable Status

I am deeply concerned that the National Council of Women has ever been considered to be carrying out charitable purposes, i.e. the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community.

According to its website, the National Council of Women

- educates women on topical issues (in other words, it indoctrinates women in Feminist political views);

- researches the needs of women and families (in other words, it tries to find more ways in which to advantage women at men's expense);

- collects and distributes information of service (in other words, it supports women's interests against men's interests);

- provides a way to get involved with current women's issues (in other words, it recruits Feminist activists);

- is an umbrella organisation for women's groups (i.e. including Feminist ones).

Among the National Members of the National Council of Women are the National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges and UNIFEM, which are both grossly anti-male lobby groups, which ignore female violence against men, despite the huge amount of research listed by Professor Martin Fiebert at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm . On its "Issues" page, the National Council of Women's website list many Feminist issues, as well as other issues.

Charitable status allows organisations to receive tax-deductible donations, which amounts to a subsidy from the taxpayer.

According to the Charities Commission and the Charities Act 2005, a charitable purpose is defined as "every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community."

Obviously, the National Council of Women is not principally concerned with the relief of poverty or the advancement of education or religion, so it would have to qualify (if at all) under the heading " other matter beneficial to the community." However, as is usual in Law, that vague phrase is interpreted as meaning something similar to the other terms that surround it - i.e. similar to the relief of poverty or the advancement of education or religion.

It is clear that the National Council of Women is an advocacy group and also a network of advocacy groups, and that advocacy groups are not charities. The taxpayer does not want to subsidise political advocacy groups. It is common sense that the National Council of Women could not recently have changed its activities so radically so as to suddenly fall foul of the definition of a charitable purpose. It must have been corruptly and inappropriately been given charitable status for many years, when other advocacy groups had been denied it.

I was once running a Men's Rights organisation which wanted to apply for charitable status, but I knew that - under the rules - we were not eligible. It is disgusting to hear that New Zealand is such a corrupt place that the National Council of Women has been granted charitable status up till now - just because they are women.

The reason for laws is that they should apply to all people equally, and without discrimination on the basis of sex.

Peter Zohrab

ENDS

© Scoop Media

