Family first deregistered

Written By: - Date published: 11:46 am, May 6th, 2013 - 32 comments
Categories: families - Tags: ,

So what’s up with this?

Family First Muzzled Because of Traditional Marriage Views

Press Release: Family First New Zealand

Family First NZ has received notification that the Charities Commission intends to deregister the charity, citing Family First’s traditional view of marriage being one man and one woman as one of the reasons for the deregistration. The investigation began just after the gay marriage debate started last year.

“This is a highly politicised decision which is grim evidence that groups that think differently to the prevailing politically correct view will be targeted in an attempt to shut them up,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. …

Family First is a non-profit organisation which receives no government funding, is funded purely by donations and gifts from New Zealand families, and relies heavily on volunteer time.

“You know a country is in trouble when a family group speaking up, publishing research, and holding conferences on traditional family values is deemed to be of no public benefit, and is in the public interest to be punished. It seems to be almost illegal to hold a viewpoint,” says Mr McCoskrie.

If we took this release at face value then I would be opposed to deregistration on the basis of FF’s (neolithic, stupid, offensive) views. But…

It’s important to note the phrase “one of the reasons for the deregistration”. Clearly there is more going on here than the issue that FF have chosen to highlight. And FF is not being “muzzled” – a change in charitable status affects their tax status, not their ability to crank out press releases. I’m surprised that (if this release is true) the Charities Commission listed “traditional view of marriage” as factor, but I’d be interested to hear what the other factors are in this case.

32 comments on “Family first deregistered ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Jono 1
    6 May 2013 at 11:56 am

    The partial breakdown of their income and expenses for one and half staff tacked on to the end of the Herald article begs the question of who exactly is getting paid what to do all this lobbying, versus actual research on families.

    • ianmac 1.1
      6 May 2013 at 12:01 pm

      Herald: ” Income from donations for the year ended March 2012 were just over $300,000, with a total income of $317,336.

      The trust spent $30,000 on salaries and wages, and $296,505 on ‘service provision’.”
      Wonder what “service provision” is?

      • mac1 1.1.1
        6 May 2013 at 12:25 pm

        Hookers?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.2
        6 May 2013 at 1:40 pm

        No doubt the head honcho has a service agreement for his private company to run the show, that way his perks and salary are hidden. The other wages would cover perhaps one office staff memeber

  2. One Anonymous Knucklehead 2
    6 May 2013 at 11:59 am

    Well, for one thing, the charities act mentions advocacy as a “non-charitable purpose”.

  3. Lindsey 3
    6 May 2013 at 12:37 pm

    Charities have charitable purposes. Family Fist is a political lobby group.

    • Ben 3.1
      6 May 2013 at 1:27 pm

      This.

      • Alanz 3.1.1
        6 May 2013 at 3:43 pm

        Yup.

        Nothing to do with being muzzled as FF will still continue to blather on in public.

        A charitable organisational status is no place for a political lobbying body like FF to be hiding behind for tax purposes or even to attempt to borrow an iota of public legitimacy of working for the common good

        • Tigger 3.1.1.1
          6 May 2013 at 8:09 pm

          Exactly. Look at their activities. It’s political, not charitable.

  5. Michael 5
    6 May 2013 at 1:14 pm

    In law, charitable status can’t be claimed when the organisation claiming it is acting for other than charitable purposes, and political lobbying or activity is a classic example of non-charitable purposes. It has been that way for a very long time, going back a couple of hundred years, and the Charities legislation is only codifying what has been the law for ages. Its amazing this hasn’t happened to them before now.

    • lprent 5.1
      6 May 2013 at 2:27 pm

      It has. I seem to remember that Greenpeace got bumped from charitable status in 2012? Or at least took a case on it…. ummm

      http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/political-greenpeace-unhappy-charity-win-wants-more-bc-137076

      In order to be registered as a charity an organisation must be established and maintained exclusively for charitable purposes. Political purposes are not charitable purposes.

      An organisation may, however, be registered as a charity if it has a political purpose so long as the political purpose is ancillary to the charitable purposes of the organisation and is not an independent purpose.

      Looks like they both won and are seeking to have the law further clarified. Perhaps Family Fist should look to Greenpeace for their salvation 😈

      But Family Fist, in my view, does nothing apart from political activity. So they have no charitable purpose for which political activity could be an ancillary of.

      • Morrissey 5.1.1
        6 May 2013 at 4:00 pm

        Saving whales and the environment is a charitable activity. Hitting children with hairbushes and defending men who assault their children on the street is not a charitable activity.

  6. aerobubble 6
    6 May 2013 at 1:48 pm

    So here’s the problem, a child’s parents die
    tragically and amongst their extended family
    are same-sex marriages, yet Conservatives
    who narrowly define marriage demand that
    the rights of the child assert the child be
    placed with a mixed-sex couple because its
    parents were.

    Even though the only extended family willing to adopt the
    child are a same-sex couple, and an unmarried
    mixed sex couple. So which do Conservatives
    choose? The unmarried or the same sex married.

    Well the answer is simple, Conservatives
    inserting themselves into the lives of a
    family who have no need for them was always a
    mistake.

    It has nothing to do with them.

  7. Morrissey 7
    6 May 2013 at 1:57 pm

    A few questions….

    1.) How is advocating for the systematic beating of children—McCoskrie recommends hitting a child with a hairbrush—in any way “charitable”?

    2.) If Family Fist is a charity, is there any reason the Mongrel Mob, Highway 61 and the Head Hunters should not be deemed charities?

    3.) How much money does Bob McCoskrie accept for his role as “National Director”?

    4.) How old does a child have to be before it is “fair game” for Family Fist-style parents?

    5.) Did Family Fist defend THIS WOMAN? And if not, why not?….
    http://static.stuff.co.nz/1286404056/249/4205249.jpg

    6.) Is this the favorite program for Family Fisters?….

  8. felix 8
    6 May 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Hey Bob, one syllable at a time.

    It’s. Be. Cause. You. Are. Not. A. Cha. Ri. Ty.

    Fucking numbnuts.

  9. mickysavage 9
    6 May 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Someone should tell Bob that there is a commandment against telling fibs about why his pet organisation has been deregistered …

  10. vto 10
    6 May 2013 at 3:56 pm

    McCroskie is ranting like an anonymous blogger…. not really appropriate

  11. Matthew Hooton 11
    6 May 2013 at 4:20 pm

    Pleased they have been se-registered,
    They are almost certainly lying about the reasons why.
    They aren’t a charity. They are lobbyists.
    Next, Greenpeace.

    • Morrissey 11.1
      6 May 2013 at 4:29 pm

      Matthew Hooton seems a tad bewildered….

      They aren’t a charity. They are lobbyists.
      Next, Greenpeace.

      Greenpeace tries to do good in the world; Family First advocates for the hitting of children.

      Can you appreciate the difference?

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 11.1.1
        6 May 2013 at 4:59 pm

        Hooten is bewildered: the High Court has already confirmed Greenpeace’s charitable status, they are seeking further clarification from the Supreme Court; Hooten will be called to give evidence because the Supreme Court holds him in such high esteem and really values his opinion. I made that last part up.

        • Rhinocrates 11.1.1.1
          6 May 2013 at 5:08 pm

          Well, he’s the go-to man on so many issues, as he’s so keen to tell everyone. Intelligence for example. Maybe he’ll start calling himself “Hooton, Matthew Hooton”.

      • Rhinocrates 11.1.2
        6 May 2013 at 5:07 pm

        Oh come on Hoots, where’s your Wildean wit? You’re not scuttling under the fridge again like the cockroach you are?

        What about Louisa Wall? She must be doubly damned, being a woman as well… why, she might accidentally fall on a turkey baster and become pregnant and immediately have to leave parliament.

    • Rhinocrates 11.2
      6 May 2013 at 4:43 pm

      Hoots is not bewildered at all. Money speaks to him with perfect clarity. Looks like he’s being paid by polluters this week.

      Question Hoots: was Parekura Hormia a “stupid” “useless” Maori? Is Louisa Wall? Following your “general rule” about their racial inferiority, y’ know.

    • Te Reo Putake 11.3
      6 May 2013 at 5:11 pm

      Greenpeace? Surely some mistake, Matthew? Did you perhaps mean the Exclusive Brethren?

  12. McFlock 12
    7 May 2013 at 2:06 pm

    Heh
    Apparently National Council of Women has been reregistered in the last month or so – they had a similar “more politics than charity” issue a year or two back.

    Nice to see the balance turn 🙂

  13. Secular Defender 13
    17 May 2017 at 4:43 pm

    Why on earth is the “advancement of religion” a charitable purpose anyway? It’s 2017, not 1817 FFS.

Links to post