Is an anti-vaccine stance charitable - Lead Story in MJA Insight today

[Guest guest]

Jane McCredie's confusion about just where the AVN fits in the whole charitable scheme of things completely and intentionally overlooks our role as an education source for the community. She does not seem to see or understand the part we play in providing information to balance the purely pro-vaccination and often pharmaceutically-driven propaganda put out by the government and medical community. Nor does she seem to be aware of the fact that the AVN is here for people who are actively seeking this information - we are not trying to shove it down anyone's throat - but there is a real need in the community for this sort of balance. But to admit that we are an education charity would mean that the information we provide could be considered to be educational and that would mean that it is credible and that would take the medical community down a path they really don't want to be walking. It's hard for them - trying to pretend to protect patient rights publicly whilst privately working as hard as they can behind to scenes to take them away. Jane McCredie: Charitable questions

http://www.mjainsight.com.au/view?post=Jane+McCredie%3A+Charitable+questions & post_id=8951 & cat=commentTHIS

country’s most prominent anti-vaccination group, the confusingly named Australian Vaccination Network, had a legal win last week when NSW authorities restored the organisation’s charitable fundraising authority.The AVN’s licence to seek public donations had been revoked in 2010 after the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) warned the network posed “a risk to public health and safety” when it refused to publish various caveats on its website, including a clear declaration of

its anti-vaccination stance.An investigation by the state authority responsible for regulating charitable activities, the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (go figure), also found other breaches by the AVN such as, for example, directing donations towards general operating costs rather than to the purposes stated to donors.Well, apparently that’s all changed now and the AVN can get back to business as usual, spreading its alarmist anecdotes about vaccination, and raising funds from the public to help it do so.The key factor in the about turn by NSW authorities appears to have been the AVN’s successful legal challenge to the HCCC warning.Earlier this year, the NSW Supreme Court

found the HCCC had acted outside its jurisdiction in issuing the warning, which has now been removed. That decision did raise quite a few

eyebrows, including in MJA InSight .NSW authorities have apparently received legal advice that the revocation of the AVN’s fundraising licence would not stand up in court given that the HCCC’s warning was no longer deemed valid.If that’s their legal advice, then so be it, but what is not clear to

me — and nobody from either the Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (OLGR) or the responsible Minister’s office would respond to my questions about this last week — is how the AVN ever came to be considered a charity in the first place.The OLGR spells out on its website

that there is no statutory definition of a “charitable purpose”, saying

the meaning of the term is largely based on previous court decisions.Charitable purposes fall into four broad categories — the relief of financial hardship, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and other charitable purposes for the benefit of the community

— but also include any benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose, the website says.So how does the AVN fit the description?This is an organisation established to argue the case against vaccines though — for reasons I’ve never understood — its leaders have always displayed a strange reluctance to make a clear public declaration

to that effect.I certainly can’t see how its essential purpose could be defined as the “relief of financial hardship” or “advancement of religion”. Nor would it come under the “education” category, since this specifically rules out “propagandist or political activities”.That leaves only the category of “other charitable purposes for the benefit of the community” or those general grab-bag terms of “benevolent” and “philanthropic”.Call me naive, but I would have expected the onus to be on the AVN to

prove its activities provided benefit to the community or were otherwise benevolent or philanthropic if it wanted official recognition as a charity.Legal victories notwithstanding, I can’t see how it would pull that one off.Jane McCredie is a Sydney-based science and medicine writer.Posted 23 April 2012The online editor of MJA Insight is Ross Sandoval and he can be contacted at rsandoval@...

Meryl Dorey,SpokespersonThe Australian Vaccination Network, Inc.Investigate before you vaccinateEditor,Living Wisdom MagazineFamily, Health, EnvironmentPO Box 177BANGALOW NSW 2479AUSTRALIAhttp://www.avn.org.auhttp://www.living-wisdom.comPhone: 02 6687 1699 FAX 02 6687 2032skype: ivmmagFreedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose. - C. MillsThe authority of any governing institution must stop at its citizen's skin. - Gloria SteinemWe rely on the help and support of our members and subscribers to continue offering our services freely and without prejudice.Please consider helping us by joining the AVN as a member. Go to http://www.avn.org.au to become a member or donate to support our work.We also sell books, videos and DVDs on vaccination and other health issues. Go to http://shop.avn.org.au/ for more details.