So, it appears the Canadian Revenue department is DRAFTING new legislation regarding what is and what is not a charity.
A column was written in opposition to the proposed changes regarding the designation of charitable status and panties are in a tight knot.
Of course, if people feel that strongly, writing their concerns to: email@example.com would be the first step. Actual constructive advice based on actually reading the entire draft would be helpful.
I do wonder how many people with said knotted panties managed to read the actual DRAFT. DRAFT
being the key word.
I took the time to read it – it does require some fine tuning to be sure but overall? Makes a whole lot of sense.
There have been posts in response to the DRAFT, siting corporate interests taking precedence over the rights of animals. Yet to see comments about animal rights groups (actually run as corporations – PETA, for example) infringing on the rights of society. Anyone remember when PETA claimed to have poisoned turkeys in B.C?
Some of these PETA type animal rights groups are little more than common criminals with only one aim – to force their points of view, by whatever means necessary, on the rest of the population – the majority. If this legislation manages to remove some of them from charitable status? Great. Violence or criminal activity by an organization negates any opportunity for them to enjoy charitable tax status and that’s what this is – it is a Revenue bill, designed to take some of the financial backing for criminal activities away.
These groups wish to remove all animal testing and will resort to breaking/entering on private property, tampering with products, placing people in danger. Animal testing is necessary, sad but true. I have heard that the woman at the head of PETA is a diabetic – I can’t say for sure that this is true but if it is? If not for animal testing of insulin and other diabetic medications, this woman would be dead.
The Children’s Wish foundation – a real charity – would be out of luck if PETA and other groups with the aim to deny pharma companies from testing on animals. The children would have no wish to fulfill because they would be dead without the drugs that enable them to survive. Drugs tested on animals.
Where would PETA’s spokesperson be, without animal testing? Pam Anderson would be out of work. The breast implants are tested on animals – the cosmetics, on animals (even when a label tells you that a cosmetic company does not test its products on animals; it is a half-truth, the testing is contracted out to private firms). Pammie’s car? A Viper and it has all leather interior – leather does not grow in a field to be harvested.
AIDS and HIV patients would not be living as long as they are, currently, able to do. The drugs are tested on animals. Chemotherapy drugs, anti-seizure drugs…all tested on animals. Vaccines that keep not only humans alive but our animal companions as well, tested on animals.
Doesn’t matter how you feel about the seal hunt; PETA has no right to endanger the lives of men trying to earn their living. It doesn’t matter if you approve of what they do or not – this is their job and they have a right to earn a living. There is a lot of propaganda out there, regarding the seal hunt but that’s neither here nor there.
The draft is designed to prevent organizations like PETA from placing the public, at large, in danger.
If anyone is interested in actually reading the true DRAFT – here’s the link: