A prominent environmentalist has been fired from an organization that has staunchly protested the Northern Gateway pipeline after he accused the Prime Minister’s Office of resorting to intimidation tactics against the project’s critics.Keep those letters to Revenue Canada coming people. It's time we started fighting back against all those supposedly "charitable" environmental groups that are trying to hijack our economy and sovereignty.
The dismissal of Andrew Frank, spokesman for anti-oil-sands group ForestEthics, comes amid an increasingly tense atmosphere among environmental groups – especially those registered as charities, whose public advocacy is supposed to be limited – that have come under fire by the federal government for harbouring “radicals” intent on “hijacking” the review process for Gateway.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Game and Set?
It appears that the "charitable" groups are getting some heat about their political activism, and they are starting to get concerned about their funding dollars, and loss of said "charitable" status.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pretty dangerous precedent setting campaign you are advocating there. What about church groups advocating for abortion legislation or no equal marriage?
Quite simple, Ted. Abortion IS murder, same sex marraige IS an abomonation of God and global warming IS a fairy tale predicated on junk science.
Next topic, Hunter.
Anyone have any idea what Eskimo is talking about? Anyone?
Or how it might relate to the topic? or to my comment? Anyone?
Eskimo: a helpful suggestion. First: go get a dictionary. Second: re-read the post. Third: re-read my comment. Fourth: Go get a newspaper. Fifth: go back to grade school, and learn to read.
Ted Betts, who are you to come to my blog, and disparage my posters? This is a civil site, that allows people to express their opinions, even you.
Eskimo responded to your post by stating his opinion. You had to make a drive by slur of him and his supposed lack of education. You made it personal, you are the one that needs an education in civility.
Grow up. Comment on the content of my blog but do not make personal attacks. It makes you sound unintelligent and juvenile. You could be considered racist because you are disparaging someone named "Eskimo" about their lack of education. Shame!
Not that Eskimo can't fend for himself!
Ted, Eskimo is our local uneducated redneck. He believes that all the homos are responsible for the right wing politicians cheating on their wives. Sanctity of marriage, doncha know!!!!! He also believes that the govmint owns a women's body to the extent that they can tell you what to do. Unless, of course, they want " big govmint" out of our lives.
Everything else...Jesus is responsible! Unnerstand?
Thanks Hunter!
SQ, your writing style is really coming along! I love being thought of as a redneck. I wear it like a badge of honor to be compared to someone who works hard and takes care of his family!
Glad no one thinks I'm a lazy, live off the government, entitlement demanding, freeloading lefty. THAT would really hurt my feelings!
Oh and Tedmeister, the LAST thing you want to do to "educate" oneself is pick up a newspaper.
Hunter, you are right.
My sarcasm was uncivil and I apologize.
But just to be clear: I wasn't calling Eskimo idiotic, just her/his comment idiotic.
Because this is an important point for charities and democracy. I do a lot of work with charities and in politics. Charities enjoy their favourable tax status because they agree not to be politically partisan which is different than agreeing not to be political. Every charitable organization I've worked with takes this very seriously as does this environmental group. Advocating for a clean Canada is political but OK, but singling out a party - even when you think the party is opposed to you and what you are advocating and uses such alarmist McCarthyite language like calling you an "enemy of Canada - is offside.
All charities should be careful of that.
But the flip side is also true. Political parties and politicians should not be going after the charitable status of charitable organizations just because they don't like their politics.
That is a very slippery slope and once we start going down that road, then we are into some dangerous democratic territory for all charities and churches.
If you can de-list a charity because you don't like them advocating for a clean Canada, then what is to stop someone from de-listing a church because they are advocating for abortion laws?
My point had nothing to do with the actual content or politics of the issue, which is why Eskimo's comment was particularly, shall we say, unhelpful to the conversation. There is something about silly, petty hyper-partisan comments being injected into a non-partisan comment that get my back up. Still, idiotic hyper-partisan comments should not be responded to in kind.
pwn
In fairness to Ted, much of my comments are left to get a rise out of folks here! Most regulars here know that ;)
Post a Comment