I mean, it makes sense to do this in our current socioeconomic system. If anyone wants to do anything to the contrary they should setup a similar effort. Unless you somehow outlaw this sort of organizing which would probably violate the charter.
Unions aren’t typically comprised of billionaires and they’re an example for entities that can have similar influence. Perhaps even greater since their members are the source of income for the billionaires. I’m not suggesting to “just be equally rich”, but if we have to go there, I’d suggest to “make billionaires poorer.” If history is any guide, it seems very difficult to stop them from achieving their goals without reducing the capital they control.
I came across this interesting article when I was doing some prior research on another one of these “charities” which are entirely about political advocacy.
When Trudeau changed the ITA in late 2018 to allow charities to spend 100% of their resources on public policy dialogue and development activities (PPDDA) it means that charities, both “left”, “right” and “centre” registered charities, can spend 100% of their resources on PPDDAs! Yes not 10%, 20% or 49% but 100%. Yes that means that a registered charity does not actually have to do any charitable work – the Liberals have just redefined certain political activities as being charitable. PPDDA is similar to non-partisan political activities under the old rules. Charities are still not allowed to support or oppose a candidate or political party.
So prior to 2018 charities were required to do some amount of actual charitable work, while this change in 2018 opened the door for charity organizations whose work is 100% political action. It seems like it would be easy enough to change that back.
This sounds dangerously close to enabling wholesale corporate lobbying via charities. That said a brief search seems to suggest that PPDDA != lobbying from legal and regulatory standpoint.
I mean, it makes sense to do this in our current socioeconomic system. If anyone wants to do anything to the contrary they should setup a similar effort. Unless you somehow outlaw this sort of organizing which would probably violate the charter.
“Just be equally rich” isn’t really a good solution to the problem of billionaires having undue influence in politics and media.
Unions aren’t typically comprised of billionaires and they’re an example for entities that can have similar influence. Perhaps even greater since their members are the source of income for the billionaires. I’m not suggesting to “just be equally rich”, but if we have to go there, I’d suggest to “make billionaires poorer.” If history is any guide, it seems very difficult to stop them from achieving their goals without reducing the capital they control.
I came across this interesting article when I was doing some prior research on another one of these “charities” which are entirely about political advocacy.
So prior to 2018 charities were required to do some amount of actual charitable work, while this change in 2018 opened the door for charity organizations whose work is 100% political action. It seems like it would be easy enough to change that back.
This sounds dangerously close to enabling wholesale corporate lobbying via charities. That said a brief search seems to suggest that PPDDA != lobbying from legal and regulatory standpoint.
So your counter is to have more money than Jewish people? Got it
Jewish people aren’t collectively responsible for the actions of this group.
Israel. This isn’t a conflict between religions. Its a conflict between Israelis and Palestinians
Colour me confused. I thought this thread was about Jewish Canadians.
Canadians that support Israel* Lots of athests and Christians and Jews and members of other religions support Israel.
This isn’t about religion. It’s about Israel.