Family advocacy can be political and charitable, rules New Zealand judge

first_imgMercatorNet 1 July 2015A New Zealand organisation promoting the natural family has won a decision from the country’s High Court that its political activities do not necessarily disqualify it as a charity.Justice Collins ruled that Family First NZ’s advocacy of the traditional family makes it similar to “organisations that have advocated for the ‘mental and moral improvement’ of society” – that is, one of the classic types of charitable activity.Family First was granted charitable status by the then Charities Commission in May 2007 but was served notice of deregistration by the Charities Board, which replaced the commission, in September 2012 during the run-up to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in April 2013.In fact, the Charities Board confirmed its decision to deregister Family First just two days before the gay marriage law was passed. The juxtaposition of events made it very clear that the family group’s public campaign to preserve traditional marriage was the deciding factor in the Board’s decision.Today’s decision from the Supreme Court allows an appeal by FFNZ against its deregistration, and orders the Charities Board to reconsider its move against the group. It follows a similar appeal won by Greenpeace NZ last August after the Charities Board ruled its purposes, like those of the family advocates, primarily “political” rather than “charitable”.However, a majority of the Supreme Court in the Greenpeace case ruled that an organisation with charitable purposes could also have political purposes, depending on the objectives being advocated and the means used to promote those objectives.Greenpeace and Family First make unusual bedfellows but taken together their appeals amount to a breakthrough for many charitable groups, as FFNZ national director Bob McCoskrie pointed out:“This decision is a victory for the many charitable groups – both registered, deregistered and wanting to be registered – who advocate for their causes, beliefs, and supporters and often have to engage in political activity, not always through choice but through necessity. It is a victory for open robust debate on issues that affect families.”(Among the currently registered are groups that opposed FFNZ during the gay marriage debate – without incurring the displeasure of the Charities Board.)In his decision Justice Collins said that the Charities Board should take into account the Greenpeace ruling – and his own – when deciding FFNZ’s status, and should not be influenced by whether or not board members actually like the family group’s views (as, clearly, they do not):[87] In this respect, I believe there is force to the submissions of Mr McKenzie QC, counsel for Family First. He argued that Family First’s purposes of advocating its conception of the traditional family is analogous to organisations that have advocated for the “mental and moral improvement” of society.[88] In recognising the strength of Mr McKenzie’s submission, I am not suggesting the Charities Board must accept Family First’s purposes are for the benefit of the public when it reconsiders Family First’s case.I am saying, however, that the analogical analysis which the Charities Board must undertake should be informed by examining whether Family First’s activities are objectively directed at promoting the moral improvement of society. This exercise should not be conflated with a subjective assessment of the merits of Family First’s views. 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. Such an approach would be consistent with the obligation on members of the Charities Board to act with honesty, integrity and in good faith.45The refusal of the Charities Board to review their decision against Family First straight after the Greenpeace case seems to indicate something other than good faith.“It is disappointing that it took a Judge to remind the Charities Board to recognise the precedent set in the Greenpeace case. When the Greenpeace case was decided, we asked the Charities Board to reconsider their decision to deregister us, but they refused to. This has cost both Family First and the taxpayer thousands of dollars in legal fees,” says Mr McCoskrie.“When a group who promotes the natural family as a fundamental social unit is deemed of ‘no public benefit’, you know a country is in deep trouble. The original decision to deregister Family First during the recent marriage debate was a highly politicised one.” http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/family-advocacy-can-be-political-and-charitable-rules-new-zealand-jud/16438last_img read more

Beat writers split in Syracuse’s quarterfinal matchup with Northwestern

first_imgAfter dominating Georgetown in the rain on Sunday, No. 5 seed Syracuse (16-4, 5-2 Atlantic Coast) will face No. 4 seed Northwestern (15-4, 5-1 Big Ten) for a trip to the national semifinals. The Wildcats scored eight unanswered goals in their second-round matchup against Notre Dame, ultimately winning 13-10. The two will face off at 2 p.m. in Evanston, Illinois in the NCAA tournament quarterfinals.Here’s what our beat writers predict to happen.Eric BlackSyracuse 15, Northwestern 13WildcaughtNorthwestern has won six straight games and boasts the best offense in the country. The Wildcats just beat No. 1 Maryland and feature a Tewaaraton finalist. On top of all that, Saturday’s game is in Evanston. But Syracuse is better. The Orange have shown that all season, including in the team’s first matchup this year when SU took down Northwestern in overtime. After dropping five games by one goal last season, this year they’ve flipped the script and won five one-goal games. In poor conditions on Sunday, Syracuse showed that its offense will take more than rain to slow down, and against the Wildcats’ subpar defense, SU should explode. Sure, Northwestern has Selena Lasota, but Syracuse has Emily Hawryschuk. The latter said “this is the team that’s gonna do it,” and a win Saturday is the first step in doing so.KJ EdelmanSyracuse 13, Northwestern 12Deep dish dubAdvertisementThis is placeholder textI don’t know if I should laugh or cry that Saturday’s outdoor game might be another overcast. But Syracuse just showed its offense won’t die in the rain. Northwestern’s attack took its foot off the pedal in the second half of its last matchup and has more in store. I’m more interested in defense in this quarterfinal game, though. Emily Hawryschuk couldn’t help but laugh when recalling Nell Copeland’s face-guard tactics against her in February. That game ended in a turnover on the opening possession of overtime and a Hawryschuk game-winner. I expect something similar on Saturday — coming down to a final shot. Syracuse has shown with its top-notch backline that discrepancies on the draw area are a small formality. Hawryschuk will dominate, and if she’s face-guarded, the likes of Megan Carney, Nicole Levy and Sam Swart will lead the Orange to their first final four since 2016.Kaci WasilewskiNorthwestern 15, Syracuse 14The North RemembersSyracuse’s 15-14 win over then-No. 4 Northwestern was its first win of the season that showed SU wasn’t the 9-10 Orange of 2018. After a back-and-forth game, an Emily Hawryschuk goal in overtime lifted SU to its first ranked win of the season. That being said, Northwestern is on a six-game win streak that includes wins over Notre Dame, Michigan and top-ranked Maryland. Northwestern is playing its best lacrosse right now, especially with its top-ranked offense. For Syracuse to win, its defense is going to have to be better than its best this season. That being said, I think it’s going to be a close game that will come down to the wire, but this time, Northwestern is coming out on top. Comments Published on May 18, 2019 at 12:25 am Facebook Twitter Google+last_img read more

Zinedine Zidane: Nothing has changed with Gareth Bale despite rescuing Real Madrid

first_imgZinedine Zidane praised Gareth Bale’s goalscoring performance against Arsenal but insisted nothing had changed with the Real Madrid outcast.Bale came off the bench to rescue Madrid, who trailed 2-0 at halftime before the Wales star scored to inspire a 2-2 draw at the International Champions Cup, where Zidane’s men prevailed 3-2 on penalties. “He is with us and we will continue working. We play well 10 against 11 and better 10 against 10. I don’t know what will happen. He wanted to play and the other day no.”I haven’t talked to him. He has trained normally and that’s why he played. Nothing has changed, you know what the situation is like.” FT: @RealMadrid 2-2 @Arsenal (3-2 pens) @GarethBale11 56′, @marcoasensio10 59′; Lacazette 10′ (p), Aubameyang 24’#Emirates | #RealMadridIsHere pic.twitter.com/Gu0KP4YqoV— Real Madrid C.F. (@realmadriden) July 24, 2019Bale stole the show in the second half at FedEx Field, where Marco Asensio also impressed before he left the field on a stretcher. Gareth Bale’s agent slams ‘disgrace’ Zinedine Zidane after Madrid transfer revelation Substitute Asensio equalized three minutes after Bale reduced the deficit in the 56th minute against Arsenal, who had Sokratis Papastathopoulos sent off for a second yellow card prior to the interval.However, Asensio’s game was abruptly cut short by an apparent knee injury and Zidane revealed he is very concerned.”It’s worrisome,” Zidane said. “Hopefully not, but he’s gone directly to the hospital to test. It looks bad.” Tipped to leave Madrid, Bale sat out last week’s loss to Bayern Munich, but he was surprisingly involved in Maryland after Zidane claimed the 30-year-old was close to departing the Santiago Bernabeu.Asked about Bale’s performance on Tuesday, head coach Zidane — who saw Nacho Fernandez sent off in the ninth minute for a handball — told reporters: “He has played a good game and I am happy for him. As for everyone. Related Newslast_img read more