'Preventing poverty' not a valid goal

[bob vernon]

More of Harper's Christian values on display.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prevent ... -1.2717774

[HP]

Yeah, I read this. Didn't react right away. I took some time to try to understand what's going on and just can't get my head wrapped around it.

There's more to the story that's not being told but this is a bit of a public policy mess. What's the next step? Is it to have some kind of concrete definition of what constitutes poverty (something that may not always look same in different circumstances) and then only allow the charity to help those people? What about people on a downward slide? It seems to me like this decision was made in some weird ideological vacuum **edited to add that this may not even be a new policy. it may have existed for years and was not being enforced **

I'd like to hear from somebody who agrees with what they've heard. I'm open to at least understanding why. I realize you might get jumped on for saying anything so I'm good with a private message as well but I really just want to get my head wrapped around the idea. I must be missing something.

[Donald G]

It seems to me that "preventing poverty" could lead to a whole raft of undertakings not directly related to "alleviating (existing) poverty". The theoretical objective of "preventing poverty" could open the budget to expending any amount of scant resources, including donations, on any number of projects not normally thought of as being associated to helping people in need. Given the propensity of a percentage of people in countries being helped to sometimes (some would say often) divert donated resources to their own use, the distinction Canada is asking for would seem sensible from an enforcement point of view.

Buying land and teaching farming to a favoured faction could be deemed as preventing poverty even though none of them are going hungry.

[Rwede]

More of Harper's Christian values on display.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/prevent ... -1.2717774

Christian values? There's absolutely no such reference to anything of the sort in the article.

[HP]

Christian values? There's absolutely no such reference to anything of the sort in the article.

I just chose to ignore the comment that triggered what you had to say. It's inflammatory and really doesn't speak to the issue.

Buying land and teaching farming to a favoured faction could be deemed as preventing poverty even though none of them are going hungry.

I guess I would argue that it's probably a lot more expensive to correct poverty than it is to avoid it in the first place. Much of what you've said goes to what I was trying to ask but couldn't articulate - poverty by whose standard? As a cynic I guess I just say that there is no metric for murders avoided but you can always measure the number of murders in jail. I hope we can do better than that so I'm happy to admit that I could be too dismissive of the logic.

I take a look at the examples around town. Society of Hope, for example, provides very low cost housing for people - even people who may not be "poverty stricken" but who are teetering on the edge. It could be fairly successfully argued that they are preventing poverty (or, at the bare minimum, preventing the situation from getting worse)... is that a problem? They own their structures and their land.

This is where I get hung up. It doesn't state in their mission statement that they're helping avoid poverty but they are. I guess, in the case of OXFAM, they need to find another way to position their objectives and then the problem ceases to exist.

[JLives]

Is this an Onion article?

This is interesting:

Oxfam Canada was singled out for criticism earlier this year by Employment Minister Jason Kenney over the group's opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

And in July last year, Oxfam Canada signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, taking issue with reports that government officials had been asked to compile "friend and enemy stakeholder" lists to brief new ministers after the summer cabinet shuffle.

[Donald G]

To jennylives ...

Your comment raises the thought that limiting the expenditure of resources to dealing with existing poverty, rather than permitting the financially unending possibilities of preventing poverty, was perhaps requested with the idea of Canada being able to close the door on groups who various concepts are contrary to our Canadian way of life.

Like being put in the position of being forced to help those opposed to Canadian freedom of religion, gender equality, racial equality etc. IMO, when the budget limits you to helping only a percentage of ACTIVE groups you have the right to direct Canadian money and resources to first help those who agree with our Canadian values. If there is any money left over (which there seldom is) help the others.

[Glacier]

Politics has no business in charities, that's why they got smacked by the CRA. http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/st ... 91826.html

[JLives]

I assume they are also taxing all pro-Israel churches now?

[Glacier]

I assume they are also taxing all pro-Israel churches now?

Being pro-X is one thing, but engaging in political lobbying is another. Just ask David Suzuki.

[hobbyguy]

So when is Harper going to go after the Red Cross? They also oppose the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And how about the UN Security council? Or the International Court of Justice?

The settlements in the West Bank have been decried and declared illegal by most countries. http://www.ask.com/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

Even Harper has expressed reservations http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/21/canada_voices_private_concerns_over_west_bank_settlements.html - but of course just plays politics with the issue.

One more step in Harper's muzzle and attack campaigns. Disgusting.

[Atomoa]

Being pro-X is one thing, but engaging in political lobbying is another. Just ask David Suzuki.

I'd have to point out that pro-Israel is the biggest political lobby out there, in terms of dollar value anyways.

Stephen Harper and "getting the star of David votes" has been a force unto itself.

David Suzuki gets audited / Canada loses a seat on the UN.

[Donald G]

Some of the people posting seem to have completely overlooked the fact that the core issue and decision was in relation to Canada making a decision regarding Taxation. It had and has nothing whatever to do with politics but those opposed to the Conservative government seem hell bent on completely distorting the issue to make it sound like Mr Harper has personally done something evil.

Some even infer that Mr Harper's "Christian values" (whatever that means) were behind the decision rather than a workable definition that could be used to identify when altruistic acts would permit tax deductions.

[Atomoa]

...just like the decision (PR move really - all face value) to go after "offshore tax cheats" wasn't a political move...?

One of the governments main arms of power is through taxation. They use that power accordingly and to try to suggest the government does not mix personal partisan politics with their taxation code is ludicrous. This is a oil government and they very publicly went after environmental groups.

Look what they tried to do with Elections Canada. Custom suited to this particular government and its values/outlooks/needs.

[Donald G]

To Atomoa ...

You are again talking about things that have nothing whatever to do with a definition to use in determining whether a given amount of money will be subject to taxation by Canada or not.

What the present government did regarding any number of other issues is completely irrelevant. Unless of course your purpose is to try to discredit the government in any way possible, rather than discuss the issue raised in the original comment.