Charities urge Peter Kent to retract 'laundering' accusation
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
And that's ok ? Just make accusations with no bearing in truth,like "if your not with us.......".
I can't figure out for sure if you people {and you know who you are}are apathetic or just stupid,but that is not the way supposedly responsibe people act,that are there to run a country,not act like playground bullies.
Like George said {this used to be a helluva country....}and it sickens me to see this gang of incompetant arseholes fk it up.
I can't figure out for sure if you people {and you know who you are}are apathetic or just stupid,but that is not the way supposedly responsibe people act,that are there to run a country,not act like playground bullies.
Like George said {this used to be a helluva country....}and it sickens me to see this gang of incompetant arseholes fk it up.
During ongoing investigations?
Actually, they said the claim that it was a concerted CPC campaign, were baseless smears.
And Kent didn't blame charities, he stated "Some groups with charitable status have been going well beyond the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) guidelines for what is acceptable practice as a charitable agency. And there has also been concern that some Canadian charitable agencies have been used to launder off-shore foreign funds,"
Nice try with the spin though.
Funny you didn't hold Pat Martin to that standard.
Oh, so you already know about how they skirt the law.
You mean like Pat Martin?
All Kent has done is acknowledge that there are charities that are acting contrary to CRA rules and regulations.
Where was all this outrage when Pat Martin made unsupportable claims about Racknine and its owner?
Judging by the double standards and selective outrage that emanate from you people, you got the gov't you deserve.
Oliver has since backtracked from the 'money laundering' claim. He still says it si for interference in Canadian environmental issues. Kent, of course, is just one of those CBC lefties like Frum, Wallin and a few more.
One might think that there would be some pride in the international support for Suzuki. His foundation is heavily engaged in international work and the international community responds appropriately. Trust Harper's dogs to misrepresent that.
But it is not just Suzuki they are after. It is shutting down opposition to the environmental disaster whose name is CPC. They do not want the world to know that all assessment of major developments is now ended when inconvenient and left to a decision of Harper's Cabinet.
One might think that there would be some pride in the international support for Suzuki. His foundation is heavily engaged in international work and the international community responds appropriately. Trust Harper's dogs to misrepresent that.
But it is not just Suzuki they are after. It is shutting down opposition to the environmental disaster whose name is CPC. They do not want the world to know that all assessment of major developments is now ended when inconvenient and left to a decision of Harper's Cabinet.
Did Oliver even say it?
You have championed democracy on this board more than once. You've even mentioned a rule of law. Just how democratic is financing the lobbying of our gov't, covertly, for foreign interests?
Ummm, OK.
It has nothing to do with Harper's dogs, it has everything to do with tightening controls on the movement of funds that may be used against the national interest. Isn't the national interest something else you championed?
Actually, the legislation applies to all charities. And is something I have felt needed to be done for quite some time. As charities have been skirting the law for quite sometime. Which is why I only contribute time to a couple, and money to only two.
How is it for lobbying against Canada's interests in fact? It is for the support of like minded Canadian organisations. What can possibly be wrong with that?
Oliver, btw, has specifically withdrawn the charge that the money is laundered money. It does not matter that he was not the originator of the charge.
I don't think that you should try to make this as a contravention of the Rule of Law or as being anti-democratic by environmental groups. If that is raised as an issue, then the preponderance of evidence will be against this government.
Oliver, btw, has specifically withdrawn the charge that the money is laundered money. It does not matter that he was not the originator of the charge.
I don't think that you should try to make this as a contravention of the Rule of Law or as being anti-democratic by environmental groups. If that is raised as an issue, then the preponderance of evidence will be against this government.
So you don't actually know what you're arguing about, gotchya. I'm also not surprised.
This only confirms you are unaware of political lobbying, funded by charities.
Foreign interests with agenda's, using charities as a front to lobby Ottawa, that may run contrary to Canadian interests.
Yes it does, you pretty much made him the author of it.
I didn't.
Did you mean to say the burden of proof will be on the gov't?
Kent is sliding down the slippery slope. There are plenty of charitable organizations that use contributions to lobby. Though Kent and our government at the moment are only focused on one sort of group that does that. In fact, they were fine with foreign organizations spending money in Canada when the NRA spent money on ads leading up to the gun registry votes. That is fundamentally the same thing as National Resource Defense Council spending money on lobbying against pipelines leading out of the Athabasca oil projects. They are OK with corporate donations and other charitable donations funneled through Friends of Science, but not ok when the same thing is done with Sierra Club Canada.
I'm fine with them changing the rules about charitable organizations-there is far too much astroturf out there-but apply it evenly.
I'm fine with them changing the rules about charitable organizations-there is far too much astroturf out there-but apply it evenly.
As long as there isn't any interference at the CRA, it should be.
No, but please do enlighten us.
The bosses are still politicians. They wouldn't interfere or apply the law unevenly now would they? :lol:
As an addendum, not all charities with stakes in the environment are against the proposed changes for charitable organizations:
http://tidescanada.org/news/tides-canada-responds-to-2012-federal-budget/
The last time that happened, a Justice slapped a politicians peepee. Rightly so.
Cool. Is there something special about that?
What you are overlooking, Bear, is that you are arbitrarily deciding what is "Canadian Interest." The environmental consequences of the kinds of developments that this Canadian government is determined will not be subject to assessment are international in scope. The inhabitants of Tuvalu have as much right to protest them as any Canadian. The citizens of Ontario who are losing jobe throught the economic fallout have the right to protest.
Be that as it may, there is no evidence at all that the CPC is correct in its charges. How interesting that they are made in the public forum without any supporting evidence.
That, though, is the normal practice of that Party, is it not. Lie; smear; demonise.
The anger at the few thousand people who wanted to speak to the assessment of the pipelines should give the government pause to consider what it is doing; not to shut them down. The vasr majority of those are Canadian citizens who are being shut out of the process - their Freedom of Speech and right to participate in decisions affecting the Canadian environment, denied.
For those who are not Canadian among them, they also have the right to speak to what affects the world.
Or should we wait until Harper is appearing at the Hague?
Be that as it may, there is no evidence at all that the CPC is correct in its charges. How interesting that they are made in the public forum without any supporting evidence.
That, though, is the normal practice of that Party, is it not. Lie; smear; demonise.
The anger at the few thousand people who wanted to speak to the assessment of the pipelines should give the government pause to consider what it is doing; not to shut them down. The vasr majority of those are Canadian citizens who are being shut out of the process - their Freedom of Speech and right to participate in decisions affecting the Canadian environment, denied.
For those who are not Canadian among them, they also have the right to speak to what affects the world.
Or should we wait until Harper is appearing at the Hague?
No I'm not. But it's funny you should say that, because you made several references to Canadian interests elsewhere on these boards.
I don't care about environmental charities, I care about all charities, especially ones that use funds to lobby the gov't for special interests.
That's great, their leaders have the privilege of addressing our gov't directly.
I'm sorry, can you show me where I said the unemployed from Ontario shouldn't protest?
Better yet, explain to me what that has to do with the topic at hand?
There isn't?
Why do you get to hold Kent to a standard you don't hold yourself to?
The only one facing a defamation suit, is the NDP's Pat Martin.
You still don't know what the changes are.
No one is being stopped from speaking. Charities that engage in political lobbying, have restrictions on how much they can spend on it.
I already knew you were an ideologue, there was no need to present anymore evidence.
Eco groups protest every resource extraction project that comes along. Clearly that is not in the National interest or in the interests of working people.