Charity chill is vintage Harper
Is it a surprise to anyone that a Stephen Harper majority government would make moves against PEN and various other charities that are in any way critical of his government? Have we forgotten that when he was in opposition, the Star often mentioned his “hidden agenda”? It’s not so hidden anymore.
Harper has openly declared war on such centrist and liberal ideologies as freedom of speech. Any idea that does not match his right-wing, evangelical thinking is ripe for the censor. Any individual or group that disagrees publicly with his brand of “truth” is singled out.
In Harperland, there is no room for dissent and those who travel that line are branded enemies and are to be dealt with as such. Should the unspeakable happen and Harper and his Conservatives find themselves in a majority again, where will we find ourselves? The Star warned us. We did not listen. Stephen L. Bloom, Toronto The Canada Revenue Agency’s primary role now has more to do with serving the interests of Harper and friends than it does serving Canada. Even more confusing is the questionable logic and motivation involved when it states, “Relieving poverty is charitable, but preventing it is not.”
Is it not more efficient and economical to avoid needless suffering and urgency by avoiding poverty before it occurs? And is it not both logical and desirable to identify the causes of poverty even if it happens to offend those the Harper government is committed to serving?
As the most racially and culturally integrated nation in the world, Canada’s government should be promoting consensus and inclusion, not dividing it into “friends and enemies” to best serve Harper’s friends and backers. Randy Gostlin, Oshawa There are about 100,000 charities in Canada. In 2013, of 880 charities audited (an extra $8 million was budgeted for it), only one lost its licence to act as a charity, and it wasn’t even one of those “radical” environmental groups the Harper government despises so much. Was that good use of taxpayer money?
As opposition foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said: “What I see here is more of a crass ideological campaign against some of our proudest and most effective organizations.” David Buckna, Kelowna, B.C. Your editorial on charities makes a giant leap to construe the removal of a public subsidy, i.e., charitable status, as a limit on freedom of speech. There are numerous advocacy groups that happily express their views without this benefit.
And as to why the CRA might be auditing the David Suzuki Foundation and other environmental groups, other investigative reporters have discovered large amounts of U.S. funds being used by these Canadian charities to help sway Canadian public policy. If this is public knowledge, and contrary to CRA rules, it’s incumbent on this department to review.
Where I share the Star’s concern is the insinuation that the Conservatives are directing the CRA to audit these groups. If you have evidence of this, show it. This is where the story lies. Brian Duffield, Toronto This is the same government that has a long and distinguished history of viciously attacking any and all individuals or organizations that have dared to question or criticize its policies or its vision for Canada. From Richard Colvin and our scientists to environmental charities and now PEN Canada, all forms of criticism of the “Harper government” have been met with a very belligerent response from the Conservatives.
The rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy were hard won some 70 years ago. It is distressing to witness our right to free speech and open discussion of government policies being systematically eroded. Even more distressing is the apparent willingness of so many Canadians to permit this to happen. As the lyric to Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi warns, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” Lyle Goodin, Bowmanville If my grandparents were still alive, I’m sure they would be dismayed to see that the country they came to from eastern Europe morphing into a pale imitation of the Putin government. The only difference is that Harper hasn’t resorted to having his detractors beaten or killed. Chester Gregorasz, Cambridge Re Have we entered a golden age of censorship? Insight July 27 I have lived in countries where the simple act of writing letters to the editor could land a person in jail or worse. In Canada we are not there yet, but I think the motivation for censorship is the same as in these non-democratic countries where they did not have the will of the people and they knew that to stay in power, it was necessary to have the silence of the people.
The Harper government does not have the will of the people, therefore it follows that every dissenting voice, MPs, scientists,
“It is distressing to witness our right to free speech and open discussion of government policies being systematically eroded. Even more distressing is the apparent willingness of so many Canadians to permit this to happen.” LYLE GOODIN BOWMANVILLE
researchers, charities and so on must be silenced.
So, Canadians, let’s not be silent. As for me I going to keep writing to the Star, if they will have me, because nothing says democracy louder than the printed word in a newspaper. Keith Parkinson, Cambridge Both the Star’s editorial on auditing PEN and Sarah Barmak’s column on the golden age of censorship, bring vivid and comprehensive clarity to the continuous strategies of intimidation reflected by the very government that is supposed to listen to its citizens and be their voice. I am genuinely grateful right now for a free press and its critical role in a healthy democracy.
There is such a clear message to self-censor, whether you are a charitable organization or an individual, and surely selfcensorship is the most insidious of all because it cannot be easily measured but it can be dramatically corrosive. Bob Sutton, Camlachie He who pays the piper calls the tune. Registered charities wishing to antagonize the government, most particularly our present federal one, had better consider setting up separate, unregistered charitable organizations for their political work. Patrick Cowan, North York With the unprecedented arrogance of the CRA’s attack on Oxfam, it is surely time for the Star, with its reputation for uncovering abuse in government departments and programs, to shed light on exactly how the CRA conducts its business.
Who are the people nominally in charge? To whom do they report? Who sets their policies? What is their policy on tax havens? How random are their checks on individual taxpayers? As taxpayers funding this most secretive of government departments, we ought to know much more, as it is not only charities who can be abused. The CRA has unprecedented powers yet apparently no corresponding accountability. Marie Dowler, Toronto Re PM sends taxman after his hated charities, July 26 Andrew Vaughan’s photograph accompanying this column tells you everything you need to know about our prime minister. Look at the pointing finger and the eyes. In case you are still not sure, cover his face below the nose and look again.
Incidentally, good column, Heather Mallick. Ron Gibbens, Richmond Hill Heather Mallick ends her Saturday piece with, “This is Harperland. How much longer will we have to live in it?” Harperland is dominated by rich, white males. As income inequity increases, that demographic is shrinking. If we had a proportional representation Parliament, that voice would also shrink. Gordon Barnes, Aurora Re Oxfam can’t prevent poverty, CRA says, July 26 My first reaction to this article was to check the date to see if it was April 1. Alas, I fear it could be for real. This CRA channelled attack on a highly effective, globally respected actor in the field of global poverty is just too petty, even for this government! G.W. Byron, Toronto I suggest that people contact Revenue Canada, Charities Directorate, Compliance Division and complain about the highly partisan “charitable” activities of the Fraser Institute. Let’s see if they are measured by the same standards. Robert Thorpe, Toronto It’s time for a major rethink of tax-deductible donations and public policy. The definition of charitable activities is just one issue. Why are tax deductions more generous for political party donations than for charitable donations? Why do donors who pursue political goals through political parties get generous tax deductions while those who donate to political advocacy groups get nothing? Larry Gordon, Toronto