 |
| Adrian Wyld/CP |
This policy targets a specific set of charities with views that differ from the government’s position on a particular issue. It is a threat to freedom of expression in a pluralist society and sets a troubling precedent for the politicization of charitable status in Canada.
Charities in Canada may operate for the following purposes: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, or other purposes that benefit the community. The government has limited capacity to meet all the needs of communities across the country. Given this limitation, private citizens organize and engage in a range of charitable activities to serve their fellow Canadians. One of the primary benefits of becoming a registered charity is the ability to provide individual donors with charitable tax credits, thus incentivizing more giving. Fundamental to this system is that charities — even and especially those with different views from the government — are equally eligible for charitable status.
In a pluralistic society characterized by a diversity of worldviews and political opinions, there should be wide latitude for charitable organizations to live out the implications of their ultimate commitments without fear of discrimination by governments. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and secular organizations should have a level playing field with respect to serving the larger public. Charitable status should not be held hostage to a mandated political orthodoxy which may change after the next government is elected.
3 comments:
There seems to be a creeping totalitarianism throughout the Western world. I don't always agree with Jorden Peterson. His unquestioning advocacy of Capitalism and his promotion of the sovereignty of the individual seem to me to take into account the various communities in which individuals live, which communities have their own sovereignties. He does, however, have much insight. His opposition to Ontario Bill 67 is a case in point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fogGeB8YmnQ
Thanks, Bill, for the link.
In the YOUTUBE piece, Bruce Pardy puts his finger on the contrast of non-racism and anti-racism which sound like equivalents but are actually opposites.
This then raises the question of the use of the prefix "anti-" as in "anti-abortion" groups which is set against the "pro-" of "pro-life" groups.
And this then relates to such legislation - not only in Canada - that discriminates against public action or speech on the basis of beliefs that may be allowed in private but proscribed in public.
Post a Comment