A few days after delivering a petition against oil and gas exploration to Parliament (received by Jacinda Ardern) Greenpeace has been declined charity status
In its decision dated 21 March 2018 the independent Charities Registration Board has decided to decline Greenpeace’s application to be a registered charity because it does not advance exclusively charitable purposes.
The Board considers that Greenpeacehas an independent purpose to promote its own particular views about the environment and other issues.
The independent Board also said that Greenpeace and it’s members being involved in illegal activities disqualifies it from registration.
Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated
The role of the independent Charities Registration Board (“the Board”) is to maintain the integrity of the Charities Register by ensuring that entities on the Charities Register qualify for registration. The Board makes its decisions based on the facts before it applying the law including relevant case law. The Board must decline organisations’ applications for registration when they do not advance exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit. A purpose is charitable if it advances public benefit in a way that is analogous to cases that have previously been held to be charitable.
The Board has decided that Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated (“Greenpeace”) does not meet the legal requirements to be registered as a charity and has declined its application.
In 2014 the Supreme Court directed the Board to reconsider Greenpeace’s application in light of Greenpeace’s amended stated purposes and the Court’s decision. The Board has carried out a full reconsideration of Greenpeace’s application and applied the principles decided in the courts to reach its decision.
The Board considers Greenpeace does not qualify for registration for two main grounds:
- Greenpeace promotes its points of view on the environment and other issues in ways that cannot be found to be for the benefit of the public.
- Greenpeace and its members’ involvement in illegal activities amounts to an illegal purpose which disqualifies it from registration.
Promotion of points of view
The Board considers that Greenpeace has an independent purpose to advocate its own particular views about the environment and other issues which does not advance a public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable.
Although the Supreme Court in Greenpeace held that advocacy can be charitable, it indicated that promoting a cause or advocating a particular viewpoint will not often be charitable. This is because it is not possible to say whether the views promoted are for the public benefit in the way the law recognises as charitable.
The Board considers that Greenpeace’s focus is on advocating its point of view on environmental issues such fossil fuel exploration and the expansion of intensive dairy farming. Most of Greenpeace’s environmental advocacy cannot be determined to be in the public benefit when all the potential consequences of adopting its views are taken into account.
Greenpeace has the freedom to continue to communicate its views and to influence policy and legislation but the Board has found that Greenpeace’s pursuit of these activities do not qualify as being for the public benefit in a charitable sense.
Illegal purpose
The Supreme Court confirmed that an illegal purpose will disqualify an organisation from being registered as a charity. In some cases, an illegal purpose can be inferred from an organisation’s involvement in illegal activities.
The Board found that Greenpeace directly coordinates and authorises its members to carry out illegal activities, such as trespass on ships and buildings. There is no evidence that Greenpeace has any processes in place to discourage its members from carrying out illegal activities.
The Board considers the illegal activities form a pattern of behaviour from which an illegal purpose can be inferred. Greenpeace’s illegal purpose means that it is disqualified from registration as a charity.
The Board’s full decision: Greenpeace-of-New-Zealand-Incorporated-Decision.pdf
The Charities Registration Board’s statement regarding the decision can be found here.
Cork
/ March 21, 2018About time. Eco-terrorists deserve no economic protection.
chrism56
/ March 21, 2018I agree. They are the industrial wing of the Green party. Engaging in criminal activity is not charitable.
Alan Wilkinson
/ March 21, 2018The Greens are the political wing of the international gang of extortionists whose business consists of turning scaremongering into cash.
Gezza
/ March 21, 2018Are you sure? I thought that was the Trump administration & the NRA, Sir Alan?
duperez
/ March 21, 2018Maybe they could try calling themselves the Sanitarium Brethren Green Destiny Church.
(SBGDC) In such an event the write ups would be fun when the GCSB checked out the authenticity of their charity status. 🙃
Corky
/ March 21, 2018Destiny has lost its charity status if I remember correctly.
Kitty Catkin
/ March 21, 2018You don’t remember correctly. They had it restored.
Corky
/ March 21, 2018Did they.. I don’t keep score. Obviously if it was restored, it was originally declined.
However, its charity status is tentative and subject to more court action.
Kitty Catkin
/ March 21, 2018It was widely reported at the time.
Corky
/ March 21, 2018I watch the news every night. I heard nothing about it being restored. That it had lost charity status was well reported hence me mentioning it. In fact now that I did a Google search it is two charities linked with Destiny Church. Whether that involves the main church I can’t be bothered finding out.
You tell me?
Kitty Catkin
/ March 21, 2018Lazy sod, find out for yourself.
Gezza
/ March 21, 2018NZ Charities Register (Charities Services)
Charity search results: Destiny
Charity Name
Registration Number
Registration Status
Registered Date
Destiny Church Auckland Trust
CC29039
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Christchurch
CC31639
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Dunedin
CC31176
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Gisborne
CC31170
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Hamilton
CC29070
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Kaitaia
CC31465
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Nelson
CC29107
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church New Zealand Trust
CC54240
Registered
27/02/2017
Destiny Church Porirua
CC31406
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Rotorua
CC29108
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Taranaki
CC31434
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Taumarunui
CC31446
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Tauranga Trust
CC27986
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Te Puke
CC31454
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Thames
CC31461
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Wanganui
CC31439
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Wellington
CC31401
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Whakatane Trust
CC30992
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Church Whangarei
CC31001
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny International Group
CC54178
Registered
19/02/2017
CC27985
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Rescue Charitable Trust
CC50592
Registered
23/05/2014
Destiny School
CC30131
Registered
30/06/2008
Destiny Social Services Trust
CC31078
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Destiny Television Ministries International Trust
CC28102
Deregistered
30/06/2008
Empower International Trust
CC25962
Registered
16/06/2008
Fire And Destiny Centre
CC11272
Registered
4/10/2007
PartisanZ
/ March 21, 2018Playing the Chareligion* game!!!
* #151
Kitty Catkin
/ March 22, 2018Up and down like a tart’s knickers….
chrism56
/ March 21, 2018It is not only NZ they are having troubles. In Canada, they are openly defying the courts.http://www.resolutevgreenpeace.com/blog/ And being the hypocrites they are, they complain about others breaking the law.
Gezza
/ March 21, 2018Probably end up in Court now. The Board can claim to have applied Supreme Court principles but it’s not a court. I don’t think the Board’s decision will be overturned though.
PartisanZ
/ March 21, 2018Now the Charities Board can start sifting through the Charities Register and weeding out anything overtly ‘political’ – and maybe covertly political too, depending on how ‘they’ define political … and depending on who the nefarious THEY actually are …
This should ensure the ongoing expansion and ‘refinement’ of a compliant Charitocracy.
Meantime anything ‘alternative’ – hence automatically political – will become Social Media Subscription Organisations … SMSOs or SMarities* [new word #150]
A compliant Charitocracy is required if this ‘growth sector of the economy’ is eventually going to take over the Welfare operations of government in an *ALL NEW*, Late-Night Contestable Social-Investment Welfare, Sympathy-Factor Popularity Contest with its own multiple Reality TV programs, Entertainment and Quiz shows … ‘Poverty Busters’ … ‘Slum Survivor’ …. ‘Punishment, Crime … and more Punishment’ …
Having exhausted the ‘Bootlaces’ model, the Charitocracy will ‘encourage’ and entice the poor to pull themselves up by their Pleading & Bleeding abilities …
I feel a Sci-Fi Mini-Series coming on … Where’s Netflix when you need them most?
PartisanZ
/ March 21, 2018Indoctrination and advanced training for our future ‘Welfare Games Society’ has already started with *Survivor*, *Big Brother*, *The Boss* and Game of Thrones …
Welfare Games should generate untold online apps and gaming too … ‘Grand Theft Neo’ … ‘Screw Civilization’ … ‘My Industrial Farm’ … and ‘Throw Thy Neighbour’ …
Trevors_elbow
/ March 21, 2018This new parody accoint of the original Partizan is quite entertaining!!!!
PartisanZ
/ March 21, 2018Actually one only has to look at the proliferation of ‘Instant Play’ Gambling Games on MyLotto to see its already happening … ‘Monkey Drop’ and ‘Diamonds in the Sky’ …
‘Pie in the Sky’ and ‘Pigs Can Fly’ …
Lotto is THE major player in the Charitocracy.
Trevors_elbow
/ March 21, 2018Quite entertaining listen to Larry Williams this evening driving home from work…. Larry had a charities law specialist on. She was irate with this decision… sounded like she was a Green Party or Greenpeace member….
Their donation soliciting methods are a tad dodgy in terms of pressure tactics… and their protest tactics definite breach the law in terms of trespass
Hopefully the never get re-registered
Corky
/ March 21, 2018I was doing a rellies accounts after he got into financial difficulties. Unbeknown to him, he’d been signed up by Greenpeace to the tune of $60 per month.
Gezza
/ March 22, 2018That story sounds pretty suss, tbh. How were they paying?
Alan Wilkinson
/ March 22, 2018Nope. Happened to my first wife. They get auto payments from your credit card. Their modus operandi.
Gezza
/ March 22, 2018Is there no end to their perfidy Al?
alloytoo
/ March 22, 2018Here’s an interesting notion.
We know that Russel Norman engages criminal activities, no doubt paid for by NZ donars.
However are NZ dollars being remitted to the mother ship (international head office) in order that they may engage in criminal activity outside NZ.
Surely NZ as a responsible global citizen has a responsibility to halt this flow of funds in support of criminal activities.
PartisanZ
/ March 22, 2018Yep … and we should reinstate the Salem Council of Elders as soon as possible …
They need to rule on which is more criminal, destroying an ecosystem and extincting a species … or briefly disrupting a commercial activity to protest about it …
Corky
/ March 22, 2018Don’t deflect. Making a subjective call between eco systems and short term criminal activity as an excuse for remediating the former is quack science..and quack morality.