Image via Wikipedia
One of the site’s readers and frequent commenters, Lew, has spotted a bit of jiggery-pokery at Stormont that appears to have slipped under the media radar. He and I think it deserves some attention.
“Northern Ireland proposes end to public benefit test for religious charities”
According to this piece religious charities operating in Northern Ireland might not have to prove that they provide a public benefit in order to keep their charitable status. The Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 says that all charities must prove they operate for the public benefit.
But last month the Northern Ireland Executive asked the Department for Social Development to draft legislation that would reintroduce a presumption of public benefit for religious organisations and possibly for charities that address poverty. The legislation will have to be introduced to the assembly before 7 March in order for it to be passed before the assembly is dissolved in advance of the general election in May.
Given the wealth of research that suggests religious charities discriminate in the provision of their services and in the people they employ, I think public attention should be drawn to this. Moreover, as was made clear by the recent Hazel Stewart court case, people who claim to have profound religious faith can also behave in depraved ways – justifying it or seeking forgiveness on the basis of their faith.
Therefore, the presumption that religious charities always operate for the public good is, in fact flawed. Religious charities – like secular ones – should be subject to the same processes of scrutiny.
Therefore I’d ask that you write to your MLA (here’s a full list) and ask for their position on this legislation and urge that they vote against a change in the law.
Well spotted, that man. This definitely deserves scrutiny.
“….. and possibly for charities that address poverty.”
Many major charities which make poverty reduction a major goal have been so infiltrated by “green” environmentalist movements that they divert significant proportions of their donated resources to campaigning for low carbon economies and against crop genetic modification.
These campaigns threaten to promote deterioration in the welfare of the world’s poor and will have have a particular devating affect on developing nations.
They deserve all the scrutiny that can be applied.
Sorry, for “devating” read “devastating”.
Here we go again! More relgion bashing from you! Just what is your problem with faith groups and relgious charities? No doubt ,being a Conservative sympathiser you would approve of Tory controlled Westminster Council proposing to stop Soup kitchens helping the homeless and would critices the churches that are speaking out against this cruel proposal?
Damien,
This is not “religion bashing”, but an issue that should concern people whether they are religious or not.
As far as I’m aware, this has yet to be resolved by our dysfunctional Assembly – nothing was done by March 7. No surprise there.
No proper debate has taken place on this move, which is designed to get around a problem caused by faulty drafting of the legislation in the first place. No surprise there either.
The legislation was basically copied from both English and Scottish law, thus it contradicted itself, and made unclear the definition of “public benefit”.
To just assume public benefit because a charity is religious is a lazy, slap-happy, potentially dangerous fudge. Let’s say (and of course this is extreme, but it’s not beyond the bounds of imagination) a Syafiee Muslim charity is established and part of its function is to pay for parents to take their baby daughters to Somalia where they can undergo clitoridectomy – female circumcision (or genital mutilation if we’re not to mince our words) – in accordance with the doctrine of that group. To say, “there aren’t any members of that sect here” is not good enough. If there were, and it is not unforeseeable that there won’t be in the future, then this charity’s public benefit would still be assumed under our faulty law.
Closer to home, at the moment in the UK there is a very real, healthy debate about the terms religious charities must agree to if they are to take on public services as part of Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. In that debate, the legitimate objections being raised are based on study upon study which show that religious charities discriminate in how they employ people – they tend to be closed shops – and they also discriminate in the provision of services, or provide them conditionally.
Basically, for religious organisations, any discrimination that suits their “religious conscience” is fair enough for them.
Well, frankly it’s not fair enough for me, and I can’t imagine how it could be considered fair by any reasonable person. Keep in mind first that the whole point of charities is that they exist to help people who are vulnerable in any number of ways. People who need charity are the last people who should be subject to discrimination and they should not be proselytised and preyed upon by some moron more interested in saving a soul than getting an alcoholic a roof over his head. This is what happens all too often in religious charities.
Add to that they will be given tax exemptions and will be eligible to any number of grants – I don’t want my taxes going to these organisations.
And Damien, does it really need to be said that this place is still shot through with sectarianism? Does it need to be said that there are any number of barmy small churches which are virlently anti-Catholic? I am willing to bet they’d be first in line with “charitable” ideas.
The Assembly knows which parts of the law conflict? Why not make them consistent and retain the public benefit test which would ensure that a charity was actually doing its job?
The National Secular Society recommends a definition of “public benefit” in the law thus: “an activity which may reasonably be expected to lead to the physical, mental or ethical improvement of a substantial number of people, and should not give rise to unlawful discrimination on grounds of gender, race, sexual orientation, or lack of means.”
What’s wrong with that Damien? Sometimes I seriously wonder if the shouting religious people do, such as your rounding on Jeff above, is because they know full well that organised religion is often foul but they hate being reminded of it. And that, to me, is entirely, almost unforgivably selfish.
Lew, beautifully argued – coherent and logical. However, I’d imagine that Damien will do what he normally does and evade the argument and simply sling personal insult.
Just a footnote:
“Therefore I’d ask that you write to your MLA……”
I e-mailed all six of my Lagan Valley MLAs on the subject. Only one, Jonathan Craig, responded – promptly to give him credit. However, his reply consisted of arguments similar to those of Damien (above) but was insult free.
I replied giving an example of a religious organisation using taxpayers’ money to fund terrorist training but got no further response.
I made no insults whatsoever,I was just stating my case as you are entitled to do so but you go beyond reasonable attacking William McCrea,Ruth Kelly,Pope Benedict etc just because they don’t share your liberterian outlook on life.Spiked columnist and prominent Humanist Frank Furedi had it spot on when he said some Humanists were just as dogmatic as any religionist and were going against the traditions of what Humanism is about!