Big Money Enviro Groups Need Some Scrutiny

[Anonymous]

Is say the others meet advancement of education with the exception of the Fraser Institute because they couldn't get their facts straight if they were handed them on a silver platter.



If you go beyond what activities a charity has to participate in, you'll find further restrictions on how they can do it.

My beloved Fraser Institute's annual publications scare the bejeezuz out of profligate spending governments in Canada. However, I acknowledge they are not a charity just like all those organizations TIDES lends it's charitable status to.

Do they?  The ones I've read are as poorly researched as they are uninspired. It's hard to take a "think tank" (I LOLed when I wrote that) seriously when they do shit like rank schools based on FSA (Foundation Skills Assessment - it's a test given to grade 4s and grade 7s) results.  How fucking lazy and disingenuous is that "research"?  



I can't take a group that intellectually lame seriously for one second.

I like their Economic Freedom of the World Index as well as Waiting Your Turn reports, but if you don't that's your biz. My whole point though is that I recognize the Fraser Institute is no more a REAL charity than Pembina or the Suzuki Fraudation.

[Anonymous]

More using charitable status in a way most Canadians probably never imagined.

Last fall, three anti-oilsands lobby groups hosted the "Trial of Suzuki." It was a strange gimmick -- a mock trial wherein David Suzuki would be "prosecuted" for treason because of his environmentalist views.



Of course, the opposite is true. Suzuki has never been charged, or even threatened with prosecution for his views. This is Canada, not an OPEC dictatorship. Rather, Suzuki has been given a national platform on the government TV channel, the CBC, where he has pontificated for nearly 50 years. There's another layer of irony to it, too. Suzuki has called for the jailing of people who disagree with his views on global warming.



It's a free country, and anti-oilsands activists do like their stunts. But why was this PR gimmick co-sponsored by the Royal Ontario Museum, a public institution using taxpayers' money? The ROM is a non-political charity. Its mandate is to be educational, not political.



It's one thing for lobby groups to rent a room at the ROM to have their own event. But that didn't happen. Suzuki's lobby group, the $10-million-a-year David Suzuki Foundation, and another environmentalist group called the Ivey Foundation, and a foreign anti-oil lobby group called the Cape Farewell Foundation, got the room for free. More than that, they had the labour of a dozen ROM staff – paid for by taxpayers. And the ROM put their logo on the whole thing.



Since when do museums take sides in ongoing political debates?



The Trial of Suzuki wasn't just a bizarre slander against the Canadian government, baselessly pretending they want to prosecute him for his politics. It was a forum for those politics, too. In the droning two-hour event, Suzuki pitched every left-wing cliché from higher carbon taxes to banning oilsands development. Suzuki – who has appeared in TV ads for the Liberal Party – used the ROM to campaign for a political point of view.



That's fine for Suzuki to do. But what's the ROM doing supporting this?



Would the ROM also support the other side of the debate – a pro-oil lobby group? Not just giving them free space and free staff, but also officially endorsing a PR gimmick and publicizing it? Who gets to choose the ROM's political views?



In this case, the answer is Dave Ireland and Bep Schippers. They're global warming activists who work as executives at the ROM. According to ROM e-mails obtained by the Sun, last summer Ireland wrote an e-mail to Schippers showing her the proposal for the Suzuki stunt, saying: "hey Bep, in confidence, check this out... freakin cool idea... I agree with Suzuki's manifesto."



Schippers wrote right back: "Hey Dave. Super freaking cool idea and we are going to make it happen no matter what. It's the edgiest thing the ROM has been involved in since the history of the ROM and the only way we would be able to pull something like this off is with a partnership like this." As in, to team up with three anti-oil lobby groups.



Schippers was clearly aware that this was outside the ROM's rules of partisanship: "It may be rocky - but totally worth it in the end. I'm willing to rock the internal boat on this one."



And here's the exact moment when the ROM ceased to be a museum and officially became a partisan anti-oil lobby group:



"We the ROM shouldn't have to be neutral. We are allowed to take sides -- it's science man," wrote Schippers.



Except calling for a carbon tax isn't science, it's politics. Smearing the Canadian government as a censor isn't science. It's politics.



And all of this, bought and paid for by anti-oilsands lobby groups.



Free speech, right? But do taxpayers a favour – don't make us pay for it through government grants, and with charitable tax status. And please stop calling the ROM a museum.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/charities-have-no-place-in-suzukis-political-theatre">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/c ... al-theatre">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/charities-have-no-place-in-suzukis-political-theatre

[Gary Oak]

More using charitable status in a way most Canadians probably never imagined.

Last fall, three anti-oilsands lobby groups hosted the "Trial of Suzuki." It was a strange gimmick -- a mock trial wherein David Suzuki would be "prosecuted" for treason because of his environmentalist views.



Of course, the opposite is true. Suzuki has never been charged, or even threatened with prosecution for his views. This is Canada, not an OPEC dictatorship. Rather, Suzuki has been given a national platform on the government TV channel, the CBC, where he has pontificated for nearly 50 years. There's another layer of irony to it, too. Suzuki has called for the jailing of people who disagree with his views on global warming.



It's a free country, and anti-oilsands activists do like their stunts. But why was this PR gimmick co-sponsored by the Royal Ontario Museum, a public institution using taxpayers' money? The ROM is a non-political charity. Its mandate is to be educational, not political.



It's one thing for lobby groups to rent a room at the ROM to have their own event. But that didn't happen. Suzuki's lobby group, the $10-million-a-year David Suzuki Foundation, and another environmentalist group called the Ivey Foundation, and a foreign anti-oil lobby group called the Cape Farewell Foundation, got the room for free. More than that, they had the labour of a dozen ROM staff – paid for by taxpayers. And the ROM put their logo on the whole thing.



Since when do museums take sides in ongoing political debates?



The Trial of Suzuki wasn't just a bizarre slander against the Canadian government, baselessly pretending they want to prosecute him for his politics. It was a forum for those politics, too. In the droning two-hour event, Suzuki pitched every left-wing cliché from higher carbon taxes to banning oilsands development. Suzuki – who has appeared in TV ads for the Liberal Party – used the ROM to campaign for a political point of view.



That's fine for Suzuki to do. But what's the ROM doing supporting this?



Would the ROM also support the other side of the debate – a pro-oil lobby group? Not just giving them free space and free staff, but also officially endorsing a PR gimmick and publicizing it? Who gets to choose the ROM's political views?



In this case, the answer is Dave Ireland and Bep Schippers. They're global warming activists who work as executives at the ROM. According to ROM e-mails obtained by the Sun, last summer Ireland wrote an e-mail to Schippers showing her the proposal for the Suzuki stunt, saying: "hey Bep, in confidence, check this out... freakin cool idea... I agree with Suzuki's manifesto."



Schippers wrote right back: "Hey Dave. Super freaking cool idea and we are going to make it happen no matter what. It's the edgiest thing the ROM has been involved in since the history of the ROM and the only way we would be able to pull something like this off is with a partnership like this." As in, to team up with three anti-oil lobby groups.



Schippers was clearly aware that this was outside the ROM's rules of partisanship: "It may be rocky - but totally worth it in the end. I'm willing to rock the internal boat on this one."



And here's the exact moment when the ROM ceased to be a museum and officially became a partisan anti-oil lobby group:



"We the ROM shouldn't have to be neutral. We are allowed to take sides -- it's science man," wrote Schippers.



Except calling for a carbon tax isn't science, it's politics. Smearing the Canadian government as a censor isn't science. It's politics.



And all of this, bought and paid for by anti-oilsands lobby groups.



Free speech, right? But do taxpayers a favour – don't make us pay for it through government grants, and with charitable tax status. And please stop calling the ROM a museum.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/charities-have-no-place-in-suzukis-political-theatre">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/c ... al-theatre">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/07/charities-have-no-place-in-suzukis-political-theatre

David Suzuki is a slimebag that used to spit on white people. He's a hateful, spiteful, jealous, insecure little man.

[RW]

Private Foundations FTW!  



I don't recognize the Fraser Institute as a research org nevermind a charity.

[Anonymous]

Many of the big charities like Red Cross and Oxfam have high overhead. That's not to say they don't do some good work.



I don't donate very much, but I would prefer small, local charities like the foodbank. As for political causes masquerading as charities, there's not a chance of them getting a dime out of me.

[Anonymous]

Private Foundations FTW!  



I don't recognize the Fraser Institute as a research org nevermind a charity.

Well, that's ur opinion. If I was in government I would not look forward to some of their annual reports.



Anyway, back to the topic of charitable status, it would not hurt my feelings one bit if they lost their charitable status. Just as long as all those anti-oilsands groups TIDES lends it's charitable status to lose it as well.

[Odinson]

I hate humanitarians with the utmost intensity...



This black guy on our greenie talk-shows said that he was so taken when he was invited to a cabin with a finnish male... No1 didnt protest that!



Take your messiah crap to the small dicked man group!

[Odinson]

The "humanitarian" didnt not protest because he felt all jesus...

[Anonymous]

I have heard mixed reports about the United Way?

[Anonymous]

I have heard mixed reports about the United Way?

I am suspicious of most charities. Some a lot more than others though.

[Anonymous]

I have heard mixed reports about the United Way?

I am suspicious of most charities. Some a lot more than others though.

I do not like to be like that..



I would to think charities are doing what they say with the money that gets donated to them.

[Odinson]

Humanitarism sets the humanitarian in a position of power... A god complex.



No protesting to the invitation appraisal by the black person...



Fuck humanitarism! Fuck all of it! Be useful or die.

[Odinson]

Humana humana ha, humana humana hey! Jungle behaviour is not exactly helping our economy.

[Anonymous]

Gawd, I hope all these California billionaire funded political lobby groups milking charitable status are all decertified as REAL charities. However, as the example of Greenpeace shows they will not be going away any time soon. They are just too big and profitable.

In 1989, when Brian Mulroney was prime minister, Greenpeace Canada had its charitable status revoked. Revenue Canada auditors said Greenpeace was a political pressure group, not a real charity, so they would no longer be tax-free.



So Greenpeace hired some lawyers and set up something called the Greenpeace Canada Charitable Foundation, and got charitable status all over again. But in 1995, when Jean Chretien was prime minister, Revenue Canada auditors revoked their status again.



So Greenpeace hired some more lawyers and tried a third time. But in 1999, Revenue Canada refused to grant them charity status. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.



Greenpeace hasn't gone away. It hasn't been banned or censored. It hauled in a staggering $11.5 million from Canadians in 2012, and sent millions of that to Greenpeace's multinational headquarters overseas. They're just no longer entitled to the privilege of operating tax-free, as true charities are.



Mulroney, Chretien – it made no difference. Tax auditors are non-partisan civil servants, and tax collection doesn't depend on which party is in power.



Which makes last week's public freak-out by a half-dozen highly political environmental groups so disgraceful.



Canada's richest, foreign-funded environmental charities – the ones who always say ordinary Canadians should be paying more in carbon taxes – are complaining bitterly that they are being audited by the taxman, just like thousands of other Canadian companies and individuals are each year.



Marlo Raynolds, former executive director of the Pembina Institute, says his lobby group is being audited for illegal political activity. But instead of denying they're political, or promising to stop, or just paying taxes like 99% of Canadians do, Raynolds wants special treatment. He demonized the CRA auditors, saying they're political agents, instead of neutral civil servants. He told the CBC the audits were "unprecedented," "very deliberate," "disturbing," "stifling" and were "shutting down voices."



Do you think if you were audited, you could go on TV, accuse your auditors of being political bullies, and somehow wiggle out of paying your fair share?



John Bennett of the Sierra Club went even further. He claimed the auditors were sent from Ottawa with a "different interpretation" of the tax law, "a new set of rules that you're being judged on." As in, the civil servants were just making it up.



But the ban on politically motivated charities has always been on the books. The current CRA policy statement was published in 2003.



It's a simple rule: charities are things we all agree on as a society. There is no "other side of the debate" with a food bank or an orphanage. But political campaigns have another side. Or as the CRA policy statement puts it, "a political purpose, such as seeking a ban on deer hunting, requires a charity to enter into a debate about whether such a ban is good, rather than providing or working towards an accepted public benefit."



Anti-oilsands activism is one side of a debate. Which means it's no more charitable than the pro-oilsands side of that debate. It's not something we all agree on. So it's not something we subsidize through tax-free status.



We don't know yet if these charities will be decertified, like Greenpeace – though their sudden PR campaign suggests they're panicking.



Bennett, Raynolds and the rest of the eco-celebrities don't deny they're being political. They regularly attack Stephen Harper. It's a sign of desperation for them to smear neutral civil servants, too.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/10/taxman-audits-enviro-groups-panic">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/10/t ... oups-panic">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/10/taxman-audits-enviro-groups-panic

[Renee]

Humana humana ha, humana humana hey! Jungle behaviour is not exactly helping our economy.

Somewhere, no matter how irrelevant, in all your insane rambling, I'm sure there is a point but I'll be damned if anyone with a rational mind can find it.   :?