lunes, 22 de mayo de 2017

Promoting the traditional family is ‘not charitable,’ NZ group told | MercatorNet | May 22, 2017 |

Promoting the traditional family is ‘not charitable,’ NZ group told

| MercatorNet | May 22, 2017 |

Promoting the traditional family is ‘not charitable,’ NZ group told

A government appointed board pursues its own agenda.
Carolyn Moynihan | May 22 2017 | comment 1 

When we highlighted an academic article criticising the special status of the nuclear family a few days ago the issue may have seemed rather theoretical. But a decision by the New Zealand Charities Board to remove the charitable status of an advocacy group, Family First NZ, shows that campaigning against the traditional or natural family is not confined to ivory towers.
The board’s move to deregister Family First as a charity goes back to 2013 when it told the group:
“(W)e do not consider that the Trust continues to qualify for registration as it has an independent purpose to promote and protect the traditional family and this is not charitable.”
Co-incidentally, this followed the legalisation of same-sex marriage in New Zealand, which Family First had opposed, sponsoring a petition against the redefinition of marriage in 2012.
The group fought deregistration and the Wellington High Court in 2015 told the board to reconsider. In his decision Justice Collins 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 board was told by Justice Collins that “…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.”
Last week’s notification will also be challenged by Family First. In a statement National director, Bob McCoskrie, said:
“This is a highly politicised decision by the Board. Once again, supporters of Family First will have to dig deep to legally defend the existence of an organisation that benefits them. And taxpayers will have to underwrite the Charities Board’s legal expenses in their repeated attempts to muzzle us. It seems to us that they are simply hoping they will get a different judge in the same court.
“This latest development will have a chilling effect for many 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.”
Back in 2013 Greenpeace was one of those groups – an unlikely partner in official odium. However, they won a decision in the Supreme Court that they were allowed charitable status, after the organisation was previously dismissed for being too political and staging protests that were illegal.
Family First have never disrupted anyone's business to make a point.
Mr McCoskrie says his group is prepared to go to the Supreme Court if necessary this time.
“Family First will be fighting this decision all the way, 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.”
Family First gained approval as a charity 11 years ago. It has passed two audits – one as recently as 2010 – and has made no change to the nature of its operations over years. “It appears that only the opinion of the government organisation overseeing charities has changed,” says Mr McCoskrie. 
Currently registered as charities – and apparently not under threat of losing that status – are three groups that opposed Family First during the same-sex marriage debate: QSA Network Aotearoa, Waikato Queer Youth, Rainbow Youth Incorporated. Also basking in official approval are the Humanist Society of NZ (a crusading secularist group) and a slew of human rights groups dealing with controversial issues, including other gay and transgender rights organisations.
Apparently it’s OK to lobby for new ideas about human beings and the way they relate to one another, but not for the tried and tested ones on which societies currently depend.
- See more at:


May 22, 2017

Our Deputy Editor, Carolyn Moynihan, is not an “I told you so” sort of person, even when the back end of our website malfunctions, which happens, always at the worst time.
But it is uncanny that on Friday she highlighted two feminist philosophers from Norway and Sweden who argue that the one-mum-one-dad-and-kids model of the family deserves no special credit, recognition or social support. They want to split the nuclear family into atomic individuals.
This sounds like the sort of loopy theory that comes from living indoors too long during the winter.
Today Carolyn refrains from crowing “I told you so”, but she has every right to. She reports on a family group in New Zealand which has had to go to court to prove that the family does deserve a special moral status. A government agency is arguing that lobbying for the “traditional family” is of no benefit to society. Nordic loopiness has crossed the equator and swum very far south. It’s a very interesting read

Michael Cook 

Could ‘flushing’ fallopian tubes displace IVF?
By Michael Cook
A new study of a century-old technique shows that it might be more effective than IVF
Read the full article
Trump dramatically expands defunding of abortion abroad
By Jonathan Abbamonte
'Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance' does exactly what it says.
Read the full article
Promoting the traditional family is ‘not charitable,’ NZ group told
By Carolyn Moynihan
A government appointed board pursues its own agenda.
Read the full article
How to beat hackers: hire one
By Georg Thomas
Some hackers wear white hats.
Read the full article
Do suicides increase where euthanasia is legal?
By Margaret Somerville
The statistics suggest that the answer is yes
Read the full article
Canada: different, yet similar
By Marcus Roberts
Its demographic trends mirror those elsewhere in the Western world.
Read the full article
Are we making the family too special for our own good?
By Carolyn Moynihan
Two women philosophers think so, despite evidence to the contrary.
Read the full article
Doctors will have to lie on euthanasia death certificates
By Paul Russell
A bill for assisted suicide and euthanasia is evolving in the Australian state of Victoria
Read the full article
Scrounging for money: how the world’s great writers made a living
By Camilla Nelson
Suffering for their art.
Read the full article
Pluralism: to differ without deferring
By Andrew Bennett
“Democracy has many merits, but it does not determine the truth.”
Read the full article
The embryo orphanage: a cautionary tale
By Ana Maria Dumitru
Orphan farming for the Greater Good.
Read the full article
Cultivating a sense of wonder in children
By Helena Adeloju
Parents can do a lot through the events of daily life.
Read the full article

MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation 
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia 

Designed by elleston

No hay comentarios: