Gareth KirkbyCommunication teacher, professional communication, strategy
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Thesis
    • Thesis Intro: Click
    • My Master’s Thesis: Uncharitable Chill
    • Media
  • Strategic Communications
  • Journalism
  • Photography
  • Resume

Would You Mistake a Charity for Radical Extremists?

July 16, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

But why would any­one want to tar­get charities?

After all, char­i­ta­ble orga­ni­za­tions are among the most mod­er­ate civil soci­ety orga­ni­za­tions. They are not nor­mally drawn to highly con­tentious actions. They tend to do research and speak about pol­icy based on that research.

Envi­ron­men­tal char­i­ties, for exam­ple, have his­tor­i­cally drawn on the research of gov­ern­ment and aca­d­e­mic sci­en­tists to advo­cate to soci­ety and gov­ern­ment evidence-based pol­icy options. (With recent fed­eral gov­ern­ment lay­offs of a large num­ber of sci­en­tists includ­ing world-famous author­i­ties, our coun­try lost our early-warning envi­ron­men­tal radar systems—see Chris Turner’s excel­lent book, The War on Sci­ence, for more information.)

Envi­ron­men­tal char­i­ties tend to edu­cate the pub­lic and the pow­er­ful about what we can do. They show us how our per­sonal choices can reduce our car­bon foot­print, and reduce toxic chem­i­cals and trou­ble­some addi­tives in our food and cos­met­ics, for example—hardly the stuff of “rad­i­cal extrem­ist groups” referred to in Joe Oliver’s open let­ter in the Globe and Mail.

The same sort of prac­ti­cal spirit per­vades char­i­ties in other sec­tors, whether inter­na­tional devel­op­ment, human rights, emer­gency aid, poverty, hous­ing, social ser­vices, HIV pre­ven­tion, women’s health, can­cer research, hos­pi­tals, uni­ver­si­ties, or research institutes.

This is surely not a new notion for the cur­rent fed­eral gov­ern­ment? I bet some cab­i­net min­is­ters have donated to char­i­ties over the years—perhaps even to some of the very pop­u­lar ones now under­go­ing audits thanks to their own actions.

In the case of envi­ron­men­tal char­i­ties, their work on issues that might upset the petro­leum indus­try and its spin-offs are pretty pre­dictable. Char­i­ties know they can’t be directly con­fronta­tional or their sta­tus can be revoked. So they edu­cate, par­tic­i­pate in pub­lic processes, speak through the media, teach us how to reduce our per­sonal car­bon use, advo­cate for spe­cific poli­cies that would reduce car­bon emis­sions. And sue the gov­ern­ment if it ignores due process, as the gov­ern­ment has a demon­stra­ble record of doing.

Using pub­lic edu­ca­tion, build­ing pub­lic opin­ion, using the courts when the gov­ern­ment, reg­u­la­tors, or the petro­leum indus­try breaks the law: all of these are mod­er­ate actions. They involve “work­ing within the sys­tem.” Most of them qual­ify as “char­i­ta­ble activ­i­ties” and the rest are allow­able “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” that are allowed up to 10 per­cent of a charity’s resources. There’s noth­ing unprece­dented or inher­ently par­ti­san in any of this list. They are actions that I dare say most Cana­di­ans would want from char­i­ties that advo­cate on pub­lic pol­icy options.

To get char­ity sta­tus, with its atten­dant tax breaks, involves con­scious con­sent to wear a straight-jacket. You can speak up for the best poli­cies within a lim­ited range. They must con­nect to your “pur­pose,” one of four rea­sons for exis­tence that a new char­ity chooses and Indus­try Canada and Canada Rev­enue Agency affirms. They can either be “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” (e.g., “please call your MP to ask them to put this pol­icy in place”) up to 10 per­cent of resources, “char­i­ta­ble activ­i­ties” that build on spe­cific knowledge—for exam­ple, speak­ing in favour of a con­clud­ing rec­om­men­da­tion found in a research report that your orga­ni­za­tion commissioned.

The more con­fronta­tional lan­guage, the peace­ful direct action, the sug­ges­tion that a new party should be elected, those sorts of things: they’re not what char­i­ties do. They’re what grass­roots and com­mu­nity orga­ni­za­tions do (and they also are rarely “extrem­ist” by any rea­son­able def­i­n­i­tion of the word.) And the char­i­ties I inter­viewed knew the difference.

Surely the cab­i­net does too? So, why would they call char­i­ties “extrem­ist” and audit them for “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties?” That’s for another blog entry.

Mean­while, check out my Master’s the­sis.

I am a for­mer jour­nal­ist and media man­ager who recently com­pleted my Master’s the­sis for Royal Roads Uni­ver­sity and now work as a com­mu­ni­ca­tions pro­fes­sional. I have earned a Web­ster Award of Dis­tinc­tion, among other awards, for my report­ing. Fol­low me on Twit­ter: @garethkirkby

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: advocate, audit, charitable, charities, community, confrontational, contention, contentious, educate, evidence, extremist, grassroots, moderate, Oliver, partisan, political, research, scientists

Government Rhetoric Frames Charities as Criminals — and Worse

July 11, 2014 No comments Article
FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrRedditLinkedInEmailPrint

Up to 10 per­cent of the resources—money, peo­ple, time—of a Cana­dian char­i­ta­ble orga­ni­za­tion can be devoted to what reg­u­la­tions call “polit­i­cal activities.”

Repeated stud­ies show that the aver­age is far below this, and that many char­i­ties do not par­tic­i­pate in polit­i­cal activ­i­ties. But a 2010 sur­vey by Imag­ine Canada, the umbrella orga­ni­za­tion of char­i­ties, found that 37 per­cent of char­i­ties actu­ally par­tic­i­pated in some form of “polit­i­cal activ­ity,” com­pared to the one per­cent of orga­ni­za­tions that actu­ally declared in their tax returns that they had done so, as found in a 2012 study by Cana­dian Press.

The Imag­ine Canada study has cred­i­bil­ity because it asked char­i­ties to report their var­i­ous kinds of com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and then the researcher sorted through them to dis­cover which met the government’s def­i­n­i­tion of “polit­i­cal activities.”

That’s a mas­sive dis­crep­ancy. And prob­a­bly the result of con­fu­sion in the char­ity sec­tor about what kinds of com­mu­ni­ca­tions are con­sid­ered accept­able. That con­fu­sion may be exac­er­bated, at least in the pub­lic mind, by fed­eral cab­i­net min­is­ters as far back as 2012 fram­ing polit­i­cal activ­i­ties as some­thing unde­sir­able, and inap­pro­pri­ate for orga­ni­za­tions that can offer donors a receipt allow­ing a tax deduc­tion. The rhetoric ramp­ing up to the audits of “polit­i­cal activ­ity” spoke of crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions, ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions, money laun­der­ing, and rad­i­cal ide­o­log­i­cal agendas.

The pub­lic, and by exten­sion char­ity lead­ers, can be excused for think­ing that “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties” occur when you rec­om­mend that cit­i­zens vote for a spe­cific party or can­di­date in an elec­tion, or inap­pro­pri­ately par­tic­i­pate in a polit­i­cal party’s event, or get really per­sonal in crit­i­ciz­ing a gov­ern­ing party or oppo­si­tion politi­cian. If that’s what was going on, who wouldn’t want char­i­ties audited, caught, and spanked?

But that’s not Canada Rev­enue Agency’s def­i­n­i­tion of “polit­i­cal activ­i­ties.” Under the reg­u­la­tions, an orga­ni­za­tion can seek to pres­sure the gov­ern­ment about an issue cen­tral to the charity’s offi­cial pur­pose (Canada’s four allow­able char­i­ta­ble pur­poses are alle­vi­at­ing poverty, advanc­ing edu­ca­tion or reli­gion, or other pur­posed ben­e­fi­cial to the com­mu­nity). Pres­sur­ing gov­ern­ment is fine so long as the char­i­ties do not get par­ti­san or exceed 10 per­cent of their resources. So, yeah, they can advo­cate for their point of view as experts in an area, and should pre­sum­ably be able to do so with­out harass­ment. And if the char­ity con­ducts a study, and then speaks of the rec­om­men­da­tions of the study, that’s not even con­sid­ered polit­i­cal activ­ity under the reg­u­la­tions, but rather “char­i­ta­ble activ­ity” and so they can do it with­out limit. Or at least these are what the char­ity “experts” I spoke to see as the dif­fer­ence between char­i­ta­ble, polit­i­cal, and par­ti­san activities.

Clear? Well, there are indeed grey areas and one of my research find­ings is that, despite mak­ing some progress on this front, CRA needs to fur­ther clar­ify these. Instead, some lead­ers say the CRA is inter­pret­ing more strictly. Whether the inter­pre­ta­tions are in flux will become clear as the audits now under­way come to fruition.

In any case, as a researcher the ques­tions that I find most inter­est­ing include why the gov­ern­ment rhetoric seemed cal­i­brated to cause con­fu­sion, to frame as crim­i­nal or un-Canadian some orga­ni­za­tions that were work­ing within the rules as they know them. Why were mil­lions of dol­lars sud­denly needed for audit­ing char­i­ties? What char­i­ties are being audited? What’s the affect on char­i­ties that advo­cate on pub­lic pol­icy issues? Most impor­tantly: what’s in it for the gov­ern­ment, why this, why now, and what does it tell us about the vital­ity of our democracy?

But more on that next posting.

Check out my Master’s the­sis.

I am a for­mer jour­nal­ist and media man­ager who recently com­pleted my Master’s the­sis for Royal Roads Uni­ver­sity and now works as a com­mu­ni­ca­tions pro­fes­sional. I have been awarded a Web­ster Award of Dis­tinc­tion, among other awards, for my reporting.

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: audit, audits, charitable activities, confusion, CRA, grey areas, Imagine Canada, partisan activities, political activities, rhetoric, survey

Archived Posts

  • November 2015
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014

Tags

abuse active citizens alternative energy audit audits BCCLA bullying carbon economy carbon taxes charitable charities civil society complaints confusion CRA democracy enemies energy regulations enforcement environmentalists ethical funnel greenwash Imagine Canada interpretation investigation muffling NDP oil partisan PEN petroleum pipeline opposition policy political activities politicization power public Rankin RCMP rhetoric silencing spying targeting voices

All contents by Gareth Kirkby | Theme by Theme in Progress | Proudly powered by WordPress

facebook twitter linkedin Rss