Monday, 16 October 2006

Free speech under attack with threat to tax-exempt charities

Free speech isn't just under attack in the manner of so-called 'campaign finance reform' (which as I explain in the post below is more accurately characterised as speech rationing), it's also under attack on another front. As the Dominion explains this morning:
Charities that indulge in too much political activity could be stripped of their tax-free status under new Government rules.
Amazing. Charities that attack and offend the government are threatened with removal of their tax-free status. As Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust says in the Dominion, "the new rules were aimed at organisations that "rock the political boat", but such groups were essential in a democracy. 'It's absolutely pathetic that political agenda is trying to stifle the public voice. It has the potential to be catastrophic'."

It certainly does. This brings to mind Thomas Jefferson's dictum that a government with the ability to give you everything you want is just as able to take it all away again. As long as rights and privileges are granted by government as a favour rather than held by right, then such things are open to political abuse. Good on Garth McVicar, Sandra Goudie, Sue Bradford and SAFE's Hans Kriek for realising the danger inherent in the proposal, and coming out an opposing it.

With the sedition trial, the proposal for speech rationing during elections and now this, it's clear this lame-duck Government has become so sensitive to the criticism it has brought upon itself it would rather kill free speech than sustain one of the few freedoms the liberal left once claimed to value and to stand for. It's rapidly becoming apparent just how barren that claim actually is.

UPDATE: This issue really is a litmus test for which Parliamentary parties do actually value free speech. Good for the Greens, who with this press release [hat tip Whale Oil] show that they are one of the few, even if they're a little confused. "The Government is trying to force charities into a 19th century mould of voluntary work," they say, Force aside, that might be a good thing, no?

LINKS: Tax-free charity shake up - Dominion

RELATED: Politics-NZ,Free Speech

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just like I said a few minutes ago, Labour has given us more material to blog about. I knew they would. They got into power 7 years ago because National was getting tired. Could the reverse be about to happen? And I bet there is more to come. In fact I doubt we have seen the worst from them yet.

Anonymous said...

"The advancement of religion is a "charitable purpose" under legislation but, under the new rules, a church that engaged in heavy political advocacy could have its tax-exempt status questioned."

I say we should revoke the tax-exempt status of all religious organizations. They can ask for exemption for their charitable efforts (I don't consider evangalism charity) just like any secular org. Simply having "Christ" in their mission statement is not sufficient justification. It's time to end the sacred scam.

For heaven's sake Peter - what's gotten into you?

Peter Cresswell said...

I say the number of tax-exempt organisations should be expanded exponentially. That's what I say.

You don't advance down the road of liberty by making more peoplepay more tax, it's done by the opposite means.

And why pretend to anonymity, Ruth? Do you really think you won't be recognised here?

phil_style said...

PC,

Well spotted ;)

Anonymous said...

I don't care if I'm recognised or not - I put myself as anon as to not offend your readers delicate sensibilities, since you said I was not welcome.

Unlike you, I don't actually believe my magnificence is such that I can bend people to my will by merely expressing an opinion on an obscure blog.

I'm still surprised you support special exemptions for religious organisations though.

Ego te absolvo.

Peter Cresswell said...

I support tax 'exemptions' for everyone.

If churches are part of the set of "everyone" then, yes, I support that too.

I'm surprised your interest in freeing people from the yoke of taxation only extends so far, but not surprised you couldn't keep away.

Anonymous said...

"but not surprised you couldn't keep away".

Nor should you be - you're like one of those runny, stinky cheeses - you have to be a delicacy somewhere.