Written By:
Anthony R0bins - Date published:
11:46 am, May 6th, 2013 - 32 comments
Categories: families -
Tags: charity, family first
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.
The current rise of populism challenges the way we think about people’s relationship to the economy.We seem to be entering an era of populism, in which leadership in a democracy is based on preferences of the population which do not seem entirely rational nor serving their longer interests. ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
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.
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?
Hookers?
that is very funny and likely to be near the truth.
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
Well, for one thing, the charities act mentions advocacy as a “non-charitable purpose”.
Indeed. Have a look at this de-registration entry:
http://www.charities.govt.nz/assets/docs/registration/deregistration/Immunisation-Awareness-Society-Incorporated.pdf
I imagine Family First’s will read as roughly the same.
What cheeses me about this is that media are going to dutifully run their line that they’re being “muzzled” and “punished”. Deregistration as a charity because you’re a political organisation is not a “punishment”. It’s requiring you to follow the same rules as any other lobby group.
Charities have charitable purposes. Family Fist is a political lobby group.
This.
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
Exactly. Look at their activities. It’s political, not charitable.
I would imagine in the fullness of time the decision will be posted at http://www.charities.govt.nz/the-register/registration-decisions/deregistration/#entities-removed-from-the-charities-register
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?….
Hey Bob, one syllable at a time.
It’s. Be. Cause. You. Are. Not. A. Cha. Ri. Ty.
Fucking numbnuts.
Someone should tell Bob that there is a commandment against telling fibs about why his pet organisation has been deregistered …
+1 micky
throw the book at them mickey 😀
McCroskie is ranting like an anonymous blogger…. not really appropriate
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.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Greenpeace? Surely some mistake, Matthew? Did you perhaps mean the Exclusive Brethren?
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 🙂
Why on earth is the “advancement of religion” a charitable purpose anyway? It’s 2017, not 1817 FFS.