Going back to charitable objects
Tribunal part 3:
AR – going back to charitable objects of LGB Alliance, same sex attraction and advocacy.
PR -yes,
AR – the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
PR – that’s what they claim.
AR – that’s quite a broad object many ways they could do that. AR – they do not hide their object that they are campaigning to maintain the definition as same sex attracted.
PR – what there aims are and what they do are different
AR – we are not talking yet about what they do, there is no dark agenda. They don’t lie about it.PR – what they say and what they are doing is different. I disagree.
AR – nothing they are doing is attempting to prevent trans people living their lives in peace and dignity
PR – I don’t agree, they are undermining trans rights in reality.
What are trans rights?
There is no “right” to force other people to see you the way you see yourself. There sure as hell is no “right” to force people to have sex with you despite the fact that they are not sexually attracted to you. Who is actually undermining rights here? I’d say it’s Paul Roberts, trying to guilt lesbians and gay men into having sex against their inclinations.
Anyone seen a good explanation of what the standard is that the commission is being asked to apply?
It can’t be the case that an organization can be denied charitable status because of an ideological or methodological dispute about whether they are effective? There are always disputes over what is the best way to help the poor, house the homeless, educate children, advocate for a political goal, etc., with some people claiming that the other side is actually counterproductive. It strikes me as unlikely that the role of this tribunal is to decide which charities are sufficiently “good” and effective to be allowed to be charities.
From some of the questioning I get the impression that it’s about honesty or fraud. That is, you can’t claim to be a charity that helps the homeless but actually spends its money on helping rich people maintain their yachts, and you can’t claim to be pro-X when you’re actually anti-X. But if that’s the test, it seems like a steep hill to climb for those challenging the LGB alliance.
The Guardian story I linked to the other day gives some explanation, though I can’t judge how good it is.
Farther down the page:
I don’t think they’ve really thought this through. They’re not ready with clear definitions of “gender” or “transphobia.” I think they’re assuming that, since LGBA is Inherently Evil, they can’t possibly be acting in good faith, and that despite their mission statement, their True Purpose is to hurt trans people. They’re like a barnacle that’s been dislodged by a whale, and suddenly facing the prospect of being left alone, unmoored and drifting, demand immediate return to “their” space on the whale.
Thanks. Yeah, I don’t think this is a road that a judge is going to want to go down. There are lots of charities that could be challenged on the grounds that they aren’t actually achieving a public benefit.
A charity that helps the homeless could be accused by conservatives of enabling homelessness by “giving them handouts.”
There are a lot of legitimate debates about whether some environmental charity groups actually help or hurt the environment on net — if you’re opposing nuclear power plants, aren’t you forcing more reliance on fossil fuels? If you’re anti-GMO foods and/or pro-organic, aren’t you making food more expensive?
The prospect of having the commission, and subsequently the courts, wade into each and every one of these debates and issue a definitive ruling on who is correct, doesn’t seem very appetizing.
I suspect that, absent some very clear statutory language to the contrary, the courts are going to limit the commission’s mandate to determining if a charity is aimed at what some people could believe is the public benefit, as opposed to purely private motivations (the “Screechy Monkey Retirement Fund” would sadly not qualify).
Not to derail the narrative, but this actually has nothing to do with helping or hurting the environment net Food being more or less expensive isn’t actually about the environment. It’s a legitimate argument to consider, and I spend a lot of time considering it, but food price does not equal environmental issue. We’re comparing apples to oranges.
Sorry, I’m just nitpicking, but it’s one of the nits that I think is important to pick, since once the environment enters into the conversation, every part of the equation becomes (to most people) about the environment. This is clearliy two different arguments – environment vs. economics.
Not saying I’m in that group that thinks we can save things just by buying organic, or that I am inherently anti-GMO (I used to be, but I am capable of listening to opinions not my own and changing my mind if the evidence suggests I am wrong). It’s just one of those linguistic things that really irks me, and I also think that argument is one that is problematic for any attempts to deal with problems of agriculture and the environment, because it turns the entire argument inside out.
Okay, back to the main thrust of the topic…
But the context of Screechy’s example is the sort of hypothetical questions that could be raised but would just gum up the works, so a question that purports to be about helping or hurting the environment but is off the mark works all the better.
Okay, I get that. I guess when you hear this ALL THE TIME it starts to work on your sanity. One of the perils of being an environmental scientist – the nonsense will derail the conversation almost before it gets started.
I’m sure. You’re doing a fine job of hanging on to your sanity!
When I feel my sanity slipping, I visit Butterflies and Wheels. The conversation around here helps stabilize my equilibrium enough to return to the job at hand.
Thanks, conversation-makers!