Welcome News In our In-Box

Family First WINS Appeal Against Deregistration  


A Win For Freedom Of Speech & Belief In NZ

Positive news from Family First

Family First NZ has won their appeal in the Wellington Court of Appeal against deregistration from the Charities Register.

This decision is a win for the freedom of speech and belief in New Zealand. The attempt by the Charities Board to deregister Family First would have been a watershed, not just for Family First, but for the whole country.

In the High Court in Wellington in 2018, the court judgment held that Family First’s “…core purpose of promoting the traditional family unit cannot be shown to be in the public benefit in the charitable sense under the Act.” Family First did not accept the High Court’s analysis or its conclusions and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Family First appealed this decision because of the threat it placed on us and other charities and our collective freedom to speak on behalf of our supporters in a civil society.

An overly restrictive or narrow view of what is in the public benefit is likely to be of concern to all charities, many of which have a certain emphasis or point of view. The importance of freedom of expression and open debate in a civil society are ideals every New Zealander should be defending.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 

A The appeal is allowed. 

B The decision of the Charities Registration Board dated 21 August 2017 to remove Family First New Zealand from the Charities Register is set aside.

C There is a declaration that Family First New Zealand qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005.

THANK YOU!!

We take this opportunity to say thank you to the thousands of you who have contributed to our Legal Fighting Fund. It has been a very expensive fight - and it may not be over, depending on whether the charities Board decide to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

But we are so grateful for the financial support and the messages of encouragement in this fight which began way back in 2013 during the same-sex marriage debate! Thank you.

Thank you for standing with us as we stand for families in New Zealand.

Kind regards.

Bob McCoskrie
National Director

Defending And Protecting Our Children

Abortion Law Reform 

Deeply Flawed 

& Anti Human Rights

Media Release 23 July 2019

Family First NZ is shocked and dismayed with the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s obsession with life and death issues, and its impending release of attempts to liberalise abortion laws, especially so soon after passionate debate on euthanasia.

“It is disturbing to have this attack on humanity at both the beginning and the end of life. It appears that a culture of death is invading Parliament,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The focus of this proposed abortion policy shift is entirely on the ‘wellbeing’ of women seeking abortion, but completely ignores the status of the foetus and any State interests in preserving life.”

“Under the current law, an unborn child is at least afforded some recognition and (minimal) legal protection. In contrast, these proposals will give the unborn child the same status as an appendix, tonsils or gall bladder – simply tissue removed as part of a ‘health procedure’.”

“The proposed bill means that unborn children older than 20-weeks gestation are no longer protected in any way. That is quite shocking.”

Any of the proposed options for a new abortion law would make late-term abortions considerably more accessible than they are under the current law. Under Model A, a baby could be aborted up until birth. Under Model C, a baby could be aborted without any restrictions up until 22 weeks’ gestation. Under Model B, and Model C after 22 weeks’ gestation, a baby could be aborted as long as the health practitioner who intends to perform the abortion considered that the abortion was ‘appropriate in the circumstances’.

“The abortion statistics published by Stats NZ last week clearly proves that we already have abortion on demand in New Zealand.”

While polling shows general support for abortion from about half of NZers, the independent polling in January also found strong support for the unborn child having human rights and being legally protected once a heartbeat is detected (which can be between 6–12 weeks), and only a small minority thinking that life doesn’t begin until the child is born. Women are far more likely than men to say that life begins at conception.

“While small radical abortion groups want more liberal time limits, polling at the beginning of last year found that only 4% of New Zealanders want more liberal time limits for abortion. The vast majority of New Zealanders also showed strong support for a restrictive legal framework for accessing abortions. This is in stark contrast to calls by groups like Family Planning, ALRANZ and the National Council of Women who are promoting the Law Commission’s Model A which allows abortion for any reason up to birth.”

Family First will be mounting a strong campaign to prevent any removal of the human rights of the unborn child and which reduces the wellbeing of pregnant women.

“New Zealanders love both women and their unborn children. And we want the law to reflect that love.”
ENDS

Changing Opinions

Bob McCoskrie: Don't let Kiwis Go to  Pot Gisborne Herald 23 June 2019 Recently released polls on cannabis have consistently shown a decreasing appetite for the legalisation of recreational dope use. It seems that while we all strongly support a compassionate response to those in real need with a cautious and researched approach around cannabis medicine, when we thoughtfully consider the real implications of legalising the recreational use of cannabis, we completely reject the proposal – and rightly so. Recent polling by Curia Market Research found that 85% of New Zealanders think that cannabis use can damage the brains of young people, 81% think that drivers using cannabis are more likely to cause accidents, 63% think that cannabis users aged under 25 are less likely to get a job, and half of us think that cannabis usage will increase if restrictions are reduced (35% think usage would remain the same). When people think about ‘cannabis’, they probably immediately think about the same overused photos by the media of a marijuana plant and a joint being smoked. Think Woodstock Weed. But legalising today’s marijuana will be far more than that.

Press Release: Family First

NZ Law Commission Wants Removal Of Time Limits For Abortion


Family First NZ says that the Law Commission has ignored the weight of submissions which supported retaining abortion in the Crimes Act and giving legal rights to the unborn child, and is also recommending the removal of time limits for abortion.

“The Law Commission received almost 3,500 submissions regarding the abortion law review, and of those submissions, just 18% - less than one in five - supported removing abortion from the Crimes Act. A large majority (69%) opposed, with 49% specifically supporting retaining the Crimes Act status for abortion, and a further 20% argued for the legal protection of the unborn child,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Despite that strong voice, the Law Commission is treading on dangerous ground for the unborn child by recommending the repeal of abortion from the Crimes Act, and thereby also removing the time limits.”

“They also recommend that the ‘woman’s physical and mental health and wellbeing’ is only deemed significant for pregnancies of more than 22 weeks gestation. What is the difference between a 21-week pregnant woman and a 22-week pregnant woman? How does the status of the unborn child change between those couple of days?”

It is also disturbing that they are recommending the weakening of many of the safeguards around abortion including:

Guest Post: Bruce Logan

The Charities Board Versus Natural Law


Bruce Logan
Board Member
Family First NZ

The attempt by the Charities Board to deregister Family First, if successful, would be a watershed, not just for Family First, but for the whole country. It is unlikely that Family First will ever find itself defending any issue of greater importance.

Deregistration would be a legal victory for those ideologues who would take power away from the family and give it to the state.  The irony is that this might not be their intention, they might not know this is what they’re doing, but that will be the consequence nevertheless.

The Charities Board believes that the primary purpose of Family First is to “promote and protect its view of the traditional family through advocating its view on various social issues.”  This is a reductionist understanding of what Family First is doing.

The term “traditional family” is inadequate because it is only part of the story. “Natural family” is a precise, useful and rational term.  The natural family is biologically determined, intergenerational and rationally and historically observable. The natural family is the consequence of the sexual nature of men and women. It is not a subjective or ideological or religious construction.