Family First loses charitable status but not ‘muzzled’

Family First has been removed fromn the charities register “because it does not advance exclusively charitable purposes”

Update on Family First New Zealand from the Independent Charities Registration Board

Published 21 August 2017

In its decision dated 21 August 2017 the independent Charities Registration Board has decided to remove Family First New Zealand from the Charities Register because it does not qualify for registration.

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 can direct charities to be removed from the Charities Register when they do not advance a charitable purpose for the public benefit and it is in the public interest to remove them.

The Board’s decision is to remove Family First New Zealand (“Family First”) from the Charities Register because it does not advance exclusively charitable purposes.

The Board considers that Family First has a purpose to promote its own particular views about marriage and the traditional family that cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable. Family First has the freedom to continue to communicate its views and influence policy and legislation but the Board has found that Family First’s pursuit of those activities do not qualify as being for the public benefit in a charitable sense.

In April 2013 the Board previously made the decision to remove Family First from the Charities Register because it did not advance exclusively charitable purposes. That decision was appealed to the High Court by Family First. In June 2015 the High Court directed the Board to reconsider its decision in light of the 2014 Supreme Court Greenpeace judgment and its own judgment.

This decision represents the Board’s reconsideration of Family First’s eligibility for registration.

Roger Holmes Miller
Chair, Charities Registration Board

View the decision here /

But Family First will fight the decision.

Stuff:  Charities Commission strips Family First of charitable status

But the group is not going down without a fight, saying it will argue the decision in the High Court.

The decision by the Charities Registration Board was made public on Monday. It is the second time the board has tried to deregister the group.

In 2013, the board made the decision to remove Family First from the Charities Register because it did not advance exclusively charitable purposes.

Family First appealed that decision to the High Court.

In June 2015, the High Court directed the board to reconsider its decision in light of the 2014 Supreme Court Greenpeace judgment and its own judgment.

The latest decision represented the board’s reconsideration of Family First’s eligibility for registration.

Family First have responded:

Family First To Charities Board – See You Back In Court

Family First NZ has instructed its lawyer to file an immediate Notice of Appeal in the Wellington High Court against the Charities Board’s formal decision to deregister Family First NZ.

Family First is going back to the same court to challenge again the belief of the Trust Board that our views about marriage and the traditional family “cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable”.

“This is a less-than-satisfactory procedure of trudging back to the same court. It seems that the Charities Board are simply hoping for a different judge and a more favourable decision. It is a highly politicised and inconsistent decision by the Board and will have a chilling effect for many not-for-profit charitable groups – both registered, deregistered and wanting to be registered – who advocate for causes, beliefs, and on behalf of their supporters, and often have to engage in advocacy at a political level, not always through choice but through necessity,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

Justice Collins in the earlier decision in the Wellington High Court in 2015 recognised the strength of Family First’s argument that its advocacy for the concept “…of the traditional family is analogous to organisations that have advocated for the ‘mental and moral improvement’ of society.…” The Charities Board was also scolded by Justice Collins who said “…Members of the Charities Board may personally disagree with the views of Family First, but at the same time recognise there is a legitimate analogy between its role and those organisations that have been recognised as charities.”

It appears that certain views of marriage and family are now deemed out-of-bounds by the State. We’ll fight that political correctness and muzzling of free speech,” says Mr McCoskrie.

That’s nonsense. McCoskrie is not muzzled, he speaking out here unhindered.

“Family First will appeal this decision as far as we need to, not because we have to have charitable status to exist, but because of the threat it places on other charities and their freedom to speak and advocate on behalf of their supporters in a civil society.”

It doesn’t stop Family First from speaking and advocating, it just removes their charity status.

Leave a comment

49 Comments

  1. Tipene

     /  August 22, 2017

    The reason for the de-registration is apparent in the judgment: “You don’t think and believe what we think and believe you need to think and believe, so therefore, you are not a Charity, as defined by us”.

    The back-story to this outcome goes way back to 2008.

    The Charities Commission have been witch-hunting Family First since forever.

    Family First will win again in Court, and the CC, like the HRC, will be exposed for the ideological quango it has always been.

    Reply
    • Family First is a christian fundamentalist group, there views are not in the wider public interest/benefit. Its not hard to understand.

      I have the same things with my med can charity, I cant take narrow views, such as we should all grow our own, but there is recognized benefit in more patients getting more products from more doctors than what is happening currently. – that is a broader public benefit.

      Reply
      • Jonathan Roe

         /  August 22, 2017

        Spot on Shane. I concur relative to the Christian fundamentalism point you make. Family First is a political lobby group in disguise, a barnacle that attached itself to the arse of the Conservative Party at the last election. They’d be more at home in the southern states of the US. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is another I’d chuck into that category.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 22, 2017

          I was once at a pre-election meeting where the organiser had trustingly asked Bob McCoskie to speak. He did, too. And spoke and spoke and spoke and spoke and spoke.. They also had some sort of petition-one of those that is emotively worded in really loaded language-and were pressuring young children to sign it. What a waste of time, they wouldn’t count.

          Reply
      • Tipene

         /  August 22, 2017

        Hmmm….and environmental fundamentalists, and gender fundamentalists, and climate fundamentalists, and queer fundamentalists, and muslim fundamentalists……these are all views that are in the wider public interest Shane?

        You’re right – it’s not hard to understand at all.

        Everything is tolerated, except Christianity, by the intolerant fundamentalists such as yourself.

        Reply
        • Bill

           /  August 23, 2017

          WOW Tipene, are you really saying one can’t define their self as a Christian, unless they’re a Christian fundamentalist?

          Reply
  2. Zedd

     /  August 22, 2017

    I agree they are a political lobby group; on the extreme ‘Christian RIGHT’ (not a charity) but their agenda is about moving NZ back to the 1950s, not forward

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  August 22, 2017

      I suspect that even then their sweeping ideas would have been out of touch.

      I hear people say that in the 50s ‘everyone went to church’. If that’s the case, they must have been well and truly squashed into the churches when one looks at the size of these.

      Reply
    • PDB

       /  August 23, 2017

      “their agenda is about moving NZ back to the 1950s”

      Isn’t that the Labour/NZL First parties?

      Reply
  3. PDB

     /  August 22, 2017

    Fair enough if this is the standard (I personally don’t care for them) but will we see it applied across the board, especially to the many far-left wing groups posing as charitable organisations?

    Reply
    • And that is the question PDB…

      Personally I have little time for Family First but they are advocates for a certain viewpoint which they and their supporters believe is for the advancement of NZ society… is that a charitable purpose? Well I think it is.

      Reply
    • phantom snowflake

       /  August 22, 2017

      Wow, great news: “many far-left wing groups posing as charitable organisations.”
      Please flick me a few names; I had no idea there were any far-left charities in NZ for me to support.

      Reply
      • Chuck Bird

         /  August 22, 2017

        Rainbow Youth

        Reply
        • phantom snowflake

           /  August 22, 2017

          Comedy gold!

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  August 22, 2017

            AMBLA (if that’s the name) believes that boy/man ‘love’ relationships (inc, sex) are a good thing and promote this, wanting boy-man sex to be made legal.

            Few people would agree that this is a good thing for society and grant them charity status if they asked for it.Just because someone sincerely believes it, it isn’t necessarily right for society.

            Reply
          • phantom snowflake

             /  August 22, 2017

            (That was a reply to Chuck Bird, not you Kitty)

            Reply
        • phantom snowflake

           /  August 22, 2017

          By the way it’s 2017; the moral conservatives lost long ago, John Banks is but a distant memory, supporting and advocating for gay and transgender youth is now mainstream!

          Reply
          • phantom snowflake

             /  August 22, 2017

            Damn, my comments not going where I want them to.

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  August 22, 2017

              Your computers recycle bin?

            • phantom snowflake

               /  August 22, 2017

              Haha you legend. Or maybe leg-end??

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 22, 2017

              I saw an old advertisement for Glamatex Furs that featured Elizabeth Tayor. The words read -I am not making this up ‘Nothing becomes a leg-
              end like Glamatex.’

              In a book that I’m reading, ‘humbuggery’ has been printed.like this- ‘hum-buggery.

              I have also seen mans-
              laughter.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  August 22, 2017

            Damn. that was meant to be ‘hum-
            buggery.’

            Reply
  4. phantom snowflake

     /  August 22, 2017

    To Kitty Catkin: Yes I recall we had “Aotearoa Man Boy Love Association”, a local clone of the american organisation. Pretty sure it didn’t last long but not going to look it up, don’t want to have to disinfect my keyboard…

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  August 22, 2017

      We knew-but not well-the American who was involved in the US, so probably was here-a bit of a know-all and I didn’t like him much-but everyone was stunned when that came out and he was deported. I can’t remember his name, just that he had one of those annoying know-all expressions.It was no secret that he was gay, but it was certainly one that he was into that sort of thing. He denied it, but from what I remember, the evidence was too strong.

      Reply
      • Chuck Bird

         /  August 22, 2017

        Jim Peron was the name and ACT supported him. Winston was instrumental in getting him deported.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  August 23, 2017

          That’s the man ! ACT stopped associating with him as soon as the link with AMBLA was revealed. Rodney Hide was very distressed, as he had trusted him and couldn’t believe that Jim Peron could do anything like that.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  August 23, 2017

            Rodney had some very dubious acquaintances ‘…to be charitable…seminar in Fiji …another one.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 23, 2017

              Oh, come on. He was invited to speak at a seminar and accepted,

              He can hardly be blamed for the fact that one of the other speakers, whom he didn’t know, wasn’t all that one might wish.

              What would you expect him to do ? Hire a private detective to check all the other speakers before he deigned to accept an invitation to be a speaker himself ?

              He can hardly be blamed for the actions of a person he didn’t know before then. He was a speaker, not the organiser, and had nothing to do with the other speakers.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 23, 2017

              Do you blame the other staff at a school where one staff member is a paedophile ?

            • Blazer

               /  August 23, 2017

              I would expect him to do ..due diligence.He backed Henderson against the I.R.D..as well.

  5. Kitty Catkin

     /  August 23, 2017

    I can’t see how Family FIST are being muzzled by not being a charity. Nobody’s trying to shut them up and stop them spouting their abhorrent views.

    Reply
    • Mikaere

       /  August 25, 2017

      What do you call Adhorrant Kitty Catkin> standing up for families, protecting our kids, See how your values and Societys values have done to this world. You reap what you sow. Meaning. As we have decided to give God the boot and out of our lives. Look around you!!!

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  August 25, 2017

        Adhorrant is not a word-not an English word, anyway. What do you mean by it ? Abhorrent, perchance ? Your reply is certainly incoherent.

        My values ? You don’t know what those are.

        I cannot see how using violence towards a child that would be classed as assault if it was used against an adult can ever be a good thing. Standing up for families ? How about standing up for children and their right not to be hit ?

        Reply
        • Mikaere

           /  August 25, 2017

          @ Kitty Catkin, you make a judgment on my comment by the misspelling of one letter in a word, how silly is that. As to spanking of children, Look at the result that policy. Has child abuse decreased? No, it has not, and never will, as spanking a child is Not child abuse. strange how those that are against spanking as a legitimate form of correction, are ok with the Ultimate form of Child Abuse. Abortion. Are you aware that in all Western countries late term, 3rd-trimester abortions are legal and performed by so-called Doctors.Medical Practitioners. At least in our country, the majority are in the 1st Trimester. And don’t even start by the ridiculous A Woman Right to Choose.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  August 26, 2017

            Yes, I am aware of that form of abortion, and as I am pro-life, your harangue is pointless and ill-judged,

            As I understand it, however, the late abortions are done when the child will not survive, and are not done for social reasons (the least acceptable excuse)

            I think that the word you were trying to use was abhorrent. But your post

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  August 26, 2017

              was garbled even without this nonsense word. The assumption that being anti one form of abuse (violence) means that one is pro-abortion is absurd. I fail to see how anyone can be all right with hitting a small child but against abortion-why is one form of abuse all right ? I can’t understand this attitude. I am at least consistent in that I am against all forms of child abuse, not just one.

              Questions should end with ? to show that that is what they are,

  6. Mikaere

     /  August 25, 2017

    A typical response to have Family First charity status taken away, All that does is prove how Far away our society has gone, This is what our modern progressive Society has asked for..in no particular order..
    #1 Highest child abuse rate in the western world

    # Highest teen suicide rate

    # More depression than ever before

    # Rebelliousness from our Youth

    # Wrong has become Right. Right has become Wrong.

    THis is progress we have asked for. A Society without God and this is the result.

    Reply
    • phantom snowflake

       /  August 25, 2017

      Yep, a theocracy with “Bishop” Tamaki as Head Of State is just what we need lol. One can only imagine the huuuuge increase in “rebelliousness” of youth…

      Reply
      • Mikaere

         /  August 25, 2017

        Brian Tamaki is a religious Cult Leader and does not speak for the Christian population of our country. All those years ago when he organized and led the “Enough is Enough” March he stood up for what was right. People change, some not for the better.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s