Well, churches. They think all that social safety stuff should be provided by churches, whom they trust to do so in an even-handed, non-evangelical manner…
The Reformers would immediately find any non-religious org claiming to be non-profit to be suspect, except right-wing think tanks. Non-profit being a term diametrically opposed to their ideology.
Canada in one year, hopefully.
Thought. Set up parallel nonprofits with the main role of publishing stuff, with minimum money going through and easily auditable infrastructure. Possibly share personnel with the acting nonprofits, certainly share information.
So we have the audit-exposed publishing orgs, and the higher-chance-of-being-left-alone acting ones…?
Could that work?
I really hope the Liberals nominate an electable candidate in my riding this time around. It is a fairly conservative riding so the NDP has little to no chance.
YES! Start your own, right where you are now.
It is entirely possible to be political without being partisan. It is even demonstrated in a sense in the instances of harassment being discussed.
The groups in question have laudable goals in fields that are directly affected by government policy/action or lack thereof. Therefore interaction with government is often crucial.
It’s perfectly legal for these agencies to lobby government, work with or in opposition to government on a policy basis.
They do so, without regard to who is in power, or rather, with whomever is in power.
The government in question harasses them with audits from a compromised arms-length agency.
That demonstrates ideologue partisan behaviour on the part of the government, not on the part of the non-profit.
As I believe is stated elsewhere, the proof is in the pudding, these agencies are not losing their status because that would be easily contested, even beneficial, Streisand-style.
The birdwatchers in question sent two letters to sitting Ministers, regarding what is obviously a legitimate ancillary concern of any birdwatching society, preservation of ecosystem. Without bees, there’s no fucking birds to watch. Plain as the nose on my face. So that satisfies one condition, that their political activities be directly or demonstrably incidental to their primary purpose as a registered charity.
The only other condition is around their disbursement quota. Basically, how much of their $$ are they allocating for political purposes. From the information we have, they spent about Two Dollars on this particular political crusade. Possibly Less, since you can send a letter to some government addresses without postage.
Unless the letter said “we are spending X to try and XX” where XX is political or not in support of their primary purpose, it is readily apparent that the government is harassing them, because the PM, PMO & Cabinet are so stupidly ham-fisted that they believe anyone that questions them or incidentally opposes their unstated goals is acting in a partisan manner.
Me too, but not least because our Prime Minister over the pond seems to think Harper is some kind of wonderful roll model, because being determined to subsidise horribly polluting and inefficient fuel sources whilst rallying against renewables is solid economic policy. Cause you know, climate change is absolute crap.
You joined just to compare Obama to Canadian right wing conservatives? Or maybe you just got bored with the saturation of the broadcast airwaves, radio, and youtube with anti-Obama campaign ads from those groups he has supposedly “shut up?”
WTF do bird watchers know about bee die-offs, and why does anyone think that their opinion in this regard is meaningful?
Seems that anyone can get a platform theses days by simply parotting the myth that bees are endangered.
Are there not beekeeping groups that are better able to weigh in on this matter?
Because they are familiar with the local ecosystem?
Myth? [citation needed]
Are you sure they aren’t attempting to? We just did not hear about them in this article.
Perhaps they know what beekeeping groups, or more likely scientists studying bees have related regardinging the many possibilities around bee die-offs.
From there it is an easy leap.
Tell me, how many birds will there be without bees?
Fewer.
Besides, they probably have preservation of ecosystem written into their charter somewhere, most nature-related groups do.
This why I would be apprehensive about living in Canada - if you annoy the wrong people, life can get very unpleasant very fast. And it’s not easy to relocate and start life over in a new town. I appreciate the fact that most Canadians stick close to their home town and roots and all the virtues of that, but sometimes a person needs to drive to another town and get a fresh start. That’s a lot easier in the US.
Oh, shut up…
Birds and bees have always been closely realted. You should ask an adult about that.
Actually, Preston, I’d say that is more probable in your country than mine. We don’t have quite the same problems with our cops, and, to be blunt, our judiciary is quite a bit better, quite a bit more independent.
What makes you think that’s the case? We actually have a larger percentage of our population in cities than you do, we have cities right across the country, and moving around the country is very common. I myself have lived in Montreal, Philadelphia, Hamilton and Ottawa, with shorter (<1 year) stays working in Vancouver, northern BC and northwestern Ontario (near Thunder Bay), and I’d be considered a stick-in-the-mud by a fair number of my friends.
Well, if my adolescent talk didn’t steer me wrong, don’t birds and bees mate with one another?
Edit to add:
Damn it! Always read to the end of the thread before commenting making a stupid joke.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
