Time for a big facepalm for partisan goonery.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-allowed-as-goal-for-charity/article19763321/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-allowed-as-goal-for-charity/article19763321/
Dear Charity, You must not prevent poverty but relieve poverty. Sincerely the CRA.
- Thread starter Xelebes
- Start date
Our Dear Leader cannot help himself. The idea that criticism or differences of opinion are allowed in our society is one he cannot comprehend at all.
I often wonder if eliminating poverty is ever a real goal - too many churches, jobs and networking opportunities depend on a class of people living in wretchedness.
Elimination is not what is being discussed. It's prevention and/or relief. And in this question, Harper wants to micromanage in determining goals so that it doesn't go to the undeserving, whichever that may be.
Hmm...
'Dear doctors. You must not prevent ill-health, only treat it.'
... then again, I was always the smart arse.
Their reasons are even stupider than I thought; I was expecting something along the lines of 'that is political campaigning - so not charitable' which Oxfam UK has to be very careful in not stepping over. (I've worked in the sector on/off for 'round a decade).
Oh, and define 'poor', Mr Anal-Bureaucrat Level 34. I expect my reply to be with me by close of business (1.PM) by next Friday. Naturally, must be in hard copy, signed, stamped and done in triplicate.
It's very disturbing how the old Victorian idea of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor/sick/whatever is coming back. When this happens, I'm always reminded by experience is that many of the most desperate cases are the ones who for whatever reason, don't ask for help. On the other hand, if help is offered gratis to all, there's much less stigma for it - even if it does mean a few who are helped don't really need 'help'.
'Dear doctors. You must not prevent ill-health, only treat it.'
... then again, I was always the smart arse.
Their reasons are even stupider than I thought; I was expecting something along the lines of 'that is political campaigning - so not charitable' which Oxfam UK has to be very careful in not stepping over. (I've worked in the sector on/off for 'round a decade).
Oh, and define 'poor', Mr Anal-Bureaucrat Level 34. I expect my reply to be with me by close of business (1.PM) by next Friday. Naturally, must be in hard copy, signed, stamped and done in triplicate.
It's very disturbing how the old Victorian idea of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor/sick/whatever is coming back. When this happens, I'm always reminded by experience is that many of the most desperate cases are the ones who for whatever reason, don't ask for help. On the other hand, if help is offered gratis to all, there's much less stigma for it - even if it does mean a few who are helped don't really need 'help'.
Last edited: