[NatureNS] Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Jm
--_d38e3bd1-b9d3-4011-915d-aa0ab02e67a7_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  The idea of excluding groups that lobby from being charitable organizatio=
ns was originally to discourage them from lobbying for projects of private =
interest or from which some one or some business could profit at the expens=
e of the public.  Of course=2C various governments have broadened this conc=
ept to include any advocacy of positions they disagreed with=2C but prior t=
o the current federal government=2C those advocating environmental protecti=
on or health were considered to be lobbying in the public interest=2C and w=
ere not threatened beyond the mention of this possibility if a government's=
 pet projects were threatened.  Private interests often referred to us as '=
special interest groups"=2C in contrast with public interest groups=2C and =
shallow media coverage has often gone along with this=2C allowing proponent=
s of environmentally unsound projects or policies (often the governments th=
at must approve or deny them) to ensure that environmentalists are treated =
as being unimportant in comparison to those investing money in such project=
s.  This has become more serious in recent years in Canada because of the w=
eakening of our federal environmental impact assessment process in the name=
 of reducing "red tape".

Ironically=2C the greatest tax breaks of all go to the donors to most parti=
san of organizations - the political parties.  This may help explain the ri=
se in Green Parties in many parts of the world.

Wayne Neily
Tremont=2C N. S.

Date: Fri=2C 17 Oct 2014 22:48:13 -0300
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities
From: jim.edsall@bellaliant.net
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca

How is this any different for telling churches they can't advocate for the =
poor and social justice



Jim Edsall
Check out my new website at http://jimedsall.com=20


-------- Original message --------
From: David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>=20
Date: 10-17-2014  9:02 PM  (GMT-04:00)=20
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca=20
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities=20
=20

Hi John & All=2C                        Oct 17=2C 2014
    This is one of those topics that touches just about everything in one=20
way or another. But I will be brief.

    With respect to the two-way choice I would accept both as valid.

    I may be repeating myself but=2C on the subject of choice: freedom of=20
thought and expression without fear of retaliation=2C provided it does not=
=20
infringe on similar rights of others=2C has been throughout the history of=
=20
humanity a very rare condition. Our current immense prosperity is in large=
=20
measure a consequence of the almost unique conditions that gradually=20
developed over the last five centuries in the Western world.

    On the other hand=2C status as a registered charity for tax purposes is=
 a=20
small bone that is offered to restrain freedom of choice. It seems obvious=
=20
that a Naturalist Organization would advocate on behalf of the natural worl=
d=20
and perhaps the best way to maintain that freedom would be to de-register=20
the organization=3B if necessary by a name change.

Yt=2C Dave Webster=2C Kentville




----- Original Message -----=20
From: "John and Nhung" <nhungjohn@eastlink.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Friday=2C October 17=2C 2014 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: [NatureNS] Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities


> Either we have some well-intentioned=2C bright=2C but overly na=EFve
> decision-makers who need more exposure to reality before they assume the
> responsibilities they carry=2C or we have a pathological aversion to
> inconvenient truths.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [mailto:naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca=
]
> On Behalf Of Burkhard Plache
> Sent: October-17-14 11:26 AM
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: [NatureNS] Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities
>
> Please read the following piece by CBC about an Ontario Field Naturalist
> Club.
> Revenue Canada considers their activities partisan ant threatens to
> reconsider their tax exempt status.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revenue-canada-targets-birdwatchers-for-p=
oli
> tical-activity-1.2799546
>
> Not cheered=2C
> Burkhard
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8390 - Release Date: 10/14/14
>=20

 		 	   		  =

--_d38e3bd1-b9d3-4011-915d-aa0ab02e67a7_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px=3B
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt=3B
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'><div dir=3D'ltr'>&nbsp=3B&nbsp=3BThe idea of excl=
uding groups that lobby from being charitable organizations was originally =
to discourage them from lobbying for projects of private interest or from w=
hich some one or some business could profit at the expense of the public.&n=
bsp=3B&nbsp=3BOf course=2C various governments have broadened this concept =
to include any advocacy of positions they disagreed with=2C but prior to th=
e current federal government=2C those advocating environmental protection o=
r health were considered to be lobbying in the public interest=2C and were =
not threatened beyond the mention of this possibility if a government&#39=
=3Bs pet projects were threatened.&nbsp=3B&nbsp=3BPrivate interests often r=
eferred to us as &#39=3Bspecial interest groups&quot=3B=2C in contrast with=
 public interest groups=2C and shallow media coverage has often gone along =
with this=2C allowing proponents of environmentally unsound projects or pol=
icies (often the governments that must approve or deny them) to ensure that=
 environmentalists are treated as being unimportant in comparison to those =
investing money in such projects.&nbsp=3B&nbsp=3BThis has become more serio=
us in recent years in Canada because of the weakening of our federal enviro=
nmental impact assessment process in the name of reducing &quot=3Bred tape&=
quot=3B.<br><br>Ironically=2C the greatest tax breaks of all go to the dono=
rs to most partisan of organizations - the political parties.&nbsp=3B&nbsp=
=3BThis may help explain the rise in Green Parties in many parts of the wor=
ld.<br><br>Wayne Neily<br>Tremont=2C N. S.<br><br><hr>Date&#58=3B Fri=2C 17=
 Oct 2014 22&#58=3B48&#58=3B13 -0300<br>Subject&#58=3B Re&#58=3B [NatureNS]=
 Revenue Canada and Non-Partisan Activities<br>From&#58=3B jim.edsall@bella=
liant.net<br>To&#58=3B naturens@chebucto.ns.ca<br><br><div&