|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 3, 2024 12:04:17 GMT
@ttl - I am talking about charities which concern themselves solely or predominantly with migrants and asylum seeker rights in the UK. The BRC does not meet that criterion.
There are dozens of such charities that do.
Have another go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 12:07:47 GMT
The problem comes when it's makey-uppy "social problems" and "inequality". In the same way that many on the left shout "Racist" at anyone that they disagree with, many so-called social problems and inequalities are largely in the eye of the beholder. The other side of the coin being those who dismiss social problems and racism, etc, as "makey-uppy" because they either don't believe they're real, or don't care if they are or not. That's your opinion. However, it is a political opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 12:20:50 GMT
it is a political opinion. As is the opposite view. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 12:55:46 GMT
it is a political opinion. As is the opposite view. Indeed Charities who receive public money or benefits should engage in no activity that is controversial politically. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 13:08:27 GMT
Really? How about Amnesty International? Or the National Trust (their successful lobbying against hunting)? Or Shelter? Or any number of charities who lobby for political change?
It's often a core concern of such organisations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 13:17:15 GMT
Really? How about Amnesty International? Or the National Trust (their successful lobbying against hunting)? Or Shelter? Or any number of charities who lobby for political change? It's often a core concern of such organisations. Yes. I'm not drawing a line between political and non political, I'm drawing a line between politically controversial and non controversial. The government should be restricted to charitable involvement that is uncontroversial. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 13:18:36 GMT
And "controversial" is often in the eye of the beholder.
It's a movable feast.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 3, 2024 13:19:52 GMT
The problem comes when it's makey-uppy "social problems" and "inequality". In the same way that many on the left shout "Racist" at anyone that they disagree with, many so-called social problems and inequalities are largely in the eye of the beholder. The other side of the coin being those who dismiss social problems and racism, etc, as "makey-uppy" because they either don't believe they're real, or don't care if they are or not. Like makey-uppy 'white privilege' you mean and apparent 'microaggressions'? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 3, 2024 13:24:08 GMT
I always do my homework before contributing to a debate I know little about So I looked at homelessness as a good example of charitable work, and of course there are numerous charities which help and support homeless people, including Shelter, the Salvation Army, the Royal British Legion and dozens of others. I found that many of these charities recieve government support, including funding, including government contracts. The moral question here is, should these charities keep quiet and say nothing if they believe that government policy is detremental to homeless people. ? My very strong opinion on that question is a resounding NO, it would be a kind of blackmail. I have a kind of indifferent view of asylum seekers, refugees and small boat crossings, because there are so many unanswered questions. I totally accept that we cannot take in everyone, but my default starting point in all this is that first and foremost these people are Human Beings. The other thing that I cannot get my head around, is the fact that a refugee or asylum seeker ( who could be merely an economic migrant ) decides that the UK is for some reason the place of his or her choosing, but then we send them to a different country on a different continent, sorry but I just dont understand the logic.
Do you really accept that we cannot take in everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 13:25:06 GMT
And "controversial" is often in the eye of the beholder. It's a movable feast. That's why no charity should receive government funding. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 3, 2024 13:49:14 GMT
From 'My Manifesto':
5a. Removal of tax-exempt status, including entitlement to gift aid for both charity and donors, from charities that exist to promote the interests of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, or charities and trusts that financially support other charities with such aims. It will be a criminal offence for any public authority to donate to or otherwise support any such charities or so-called ‘third-sector’ NGOs and other organisations that have similar objectives.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 13:50:05 GMT
Like makey-uppy 'white privilege' you mean.. QED. YOU don't believe White Privilege exists, therefore it's "makey-uppy". |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 13:51:37 GMT
And "controversial" is often in the eye of the beholder. It's a movable feast. I'm pretty sure you could easily differentiate in reality. The threat to stop it entirely might force some honesty. Let's look at your stance here - you end up arguing about it on a political board and yet you maintain it is not politically controversial? |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 3, 2024 13:59:04 GMT
Like makey-uppy 'white privilege' you mean.. QED. YOU don't believe White Privilege exists, therefore it's "makey-uppy". It's a theory and nothing more, one that emboldens the victimhood narrative. What kind of privilege exists in Japan for Japanese people, or China for the Chinese, Indian for the Indians? It's more about self-flagellation because the theory is placed nowhere else in the world where people of colour are the dominant demographic. It's makey-uppy and people who fall for this claptrap are fools for feeding this divisive American academic theory. Racism exists, that's not makey-uppy, that's universal to every colour and creed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 14:26:15 GMT
it is a political opinion. As is the opposite view. Nope. If you're the one making an assertion it behooves you to prove it. |
|
