VeggieBoards banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">New restrictions on animal protection charities in Canada would prevent them from speaking out against factory farming, puppy mills, hunting, the slaughter of baby seals, vivisection and cruel sports.<br><br>
The new regulations, put forward by the Canada Revenue Agency, state that:<br><br>
"Under common law, an activity or purpose is only charitable when it provides a benefit to humans."<br><br>
Therefore:<br><br>
"If a purpose or activity that promotes the welfare of animals harms humans, or has a real potential to cause significant harm to humans, it is likely not charitable Some activities may promote the welfare of animals but also cause, or have the potential to cause, harm to humans. The harm could take many forms, including physical or economic harm, or direct or indirect harm."<br><br>
Specifically, according to the new policy, "seeking to abolish vivisection is not charitable." Nor is seeking to stop cruel practices at factory farms or, indeed, any other activities that could cause economic harm to humans.<br><br>
Overall, theres very little outside of caring for animals at shelters that would still be considered charitable.<br><br>
Here are some excerpts from the document that lays out these policies:<br><br>
2.\tUnder common law, <b>an activity or purpose is only charitable when it provides a benefit to humans.</b><br><br>
3.\tTo be charitable, the <b>benefit to humans must always take precedence over any benefit to animals.</b> If a purpose or activity that promotes the welfare of animals harms humans, or has a real potential to cause significant harm to humans, it is likely not charitable.<br><br>
23. Promoting the welfare of animals is only charitable when it results in a benefit to humans. Purposes that benefit animals, but not humans, are not charitable.<br><br>
28.\tSome activities may promote the welfare of animals but also cause, or have the potential to cause, harm to humans. The harm could take many forms, including physical or economic harm, or direct or indirect harm.<br><br>
29.\tAny benefit or potential benefit to the welfare of animals must be balanced against any harm or potential harm to humans when deciding whether an organization or activity that promotes the welfare of animals is charitable. <b>The public benefit resulting from promoting the welfare of animals must clearly outweigh any harm or potential harm to humans.</b><br><br>
30.\tFor example, the courts have decided that <b>seeking to abolish vivisection is not charitable.</b><br><br>
31.\tIn short, when weighing benefits to animals against benefits to humans, "the life and happiness of human beings must be preferred to that of animals."<br><br>
42.\tWhen advancing education, the charity cannot simply promote a particular point of view. If an organization tries to influence public opinion or actions on a controversial issue, it is not advancing education in the charitable sense.<br><br>
43.\tFor example, a charity might offer courses in how to minimize harm to local wildlife and ecosystems that tend to result from human activity. However, <b>if the charity were to try to convince people that certain legal hunting practices were morally wrong and should be abolished, it would not be advancing education in the charitable sense.</b></div>
</div>
<br><a href="http://www.montrealdogblog.com/5652/canada-seeks-neuter-animal-charities/" target="_blank">http://www.montrealdogblog.com/5652/...mal-charities/</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,728 Posts
Well, any of those points could be taken and the argument could be made that the psychological/emotional/spiritual benefits of helping the animals greatly and directly benefits humans.<br><br>
Also, veggie organizations could establish themselves as a religion and avoid being controlled by this mess too.
 

·
Rat Queen/Mouse Matriarch
Joined
·
836 Posts
Awful. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/sad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":("> Yes, speaking out against puppy mills and factory farming can be 'bad for business' but I don't understand how the animals' welfare doesn't take precedence over the extra money made because of a poorly run business. In puppy mills for example, is it really too much to ask that they be given proper shelter in the heat/cold or not to be bred until their uterus falls out? I would also argue that speaking out against factory farming DOES benefit people health-wise and environmentally especially. This seems to be all about money. Let's not do anything about these injustices and instead try to hide them because it's more important not to infringe on a person's ability to make money at the expense of the animals. Just my opinion and it's terrible to see.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top