Showing posts with label #Aurea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Aurea. Show all posts

Thursday, 12 September 2019

Let's Talk About "Charities" and Their Political Influence - Election 2019

Let's talk about "charities". Charities or charitable foundations are a lot more complicated than you might realise. Take the Munk Foundation, for example. They give a lot of money out. Is this because they are altruistic? Let's unpack this a bit.
There are a lot of reasons why insanely wealthy individuals and corporations donate money to causes. They do not all involve having good hearts. There are tax considerations, for one thing. 
Having charitable status allows an organisation to give tax receipts to donors. Including the founders of a foundation. This can be an important tool is managing the taxes a wealthy individual or corporation has to pay. 
At the same time, charitable foundations allow a lot of movement of money with less oversight than an audited public company might face. It allows for bringing in speakers suited to the founder's agenda or philosophy, like how Munk brought in Steve Bannon to Toronto. 
It allows for strings to be attached. Peter Munk gave the U of T $35 million dollars in 2010. They had to name the School of Global Affairs after him and also agree to let him or his assignees dictate the programs and philosophy of the School. 
In some ways this is what Andrew Scheer has said he would do, tying funding to post-secondary institutions to what speakers he would like to see there and what he would like to have taught. 
Organizations also often give money to charitable causes to give them the sheen of "good corporate citizenship" which draws attention away from their less savoury aspects. 
Munk acquired his fortune through a number of corporations, including Barrick Gold. Barrick Gold has a rather less than saintly history of operational practices around the world. 
In Papua New Guinea... 
Papua New Guinea again... Allow me to draw your attention to sexual violence and gang rapes on page 2... 
earthrights.org/wp-content/upl…
In Tanzania... 
Basically around the world... 
earthrights.org/wp-content/upl…
Barrick Gold has close ties with the CPC and Harper. CPC MP John Baird left federal politics and went to work for Barrick as an advisor in 2015... 
In a way, having a charitable foundation can be seen something like being able to buy dispensation for your sins. 
There are potentially additional benefits. Giving large sums can buy you a voice in directing policy, educational direction, and re-designing the social zeitgeist. 
When you see the word "charity", you may think of soup kitchens, visiting the elderly in hospital, or providing mosquito nets in Africa. But it can be much more complicated than that. 
The CRA has specific rules for what can be a charity and what can be a not-for-profit. 
However, these rules are somewhat vague and subject to interpretation. For example, the Fraser Institute (one of the Munk Foundation's beneficiaries) is a charitable organisation under CRA rules. I struggle to see what contribution they make to society. 
I can, however, clearly see how it benefits its donors. The Munks, the Kochs, and other right-wing organisations that donate heavily. They give money, get a significant tax benefit, and the FI churns out reports that support their ideology. 
I do not know how they got charitable status. But they have it and so does Aurea, who hosts talks by Jordan Peterson, Steve Bannon, etc. And the beneficiaries are the donors. 
So, don't let the wording, that proposed debates are being run by "charities" delude you into thinking these organisations are doing something positive. They are not. Not by any reasonable thinking, at any rate. 
These so-called charities exist to expand the gap between the uber-rich and the poor. They exist to change the way Canadians view the world. They also, apparently, exist to sway Canadian election and undermine our democracy. 
Not all charities are nefarious. There are excellent charities that do legitimately altruistic work. Physicians Without Borders, for example. But it is wise to not take the label "Charity" at face value. 
Do your research before you donate. Do your research before you accept their claims. Do your research before you think participating in their leadership debates is safe or innocuous. 
There are greedy people in this world. Ironically, some of them appear to be the most charitable. Always follow the money. Who benefits? If it is children in sub-Saharan Africa, great. If it is rich old men with more than they could possibly need, not so much. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Canadian Election Debates - Some History and Clarification

Seriously? "Zing"? Are you 12? This is the CPC trying to delude Canadians yet again. Far too few people understand how these debates work and what their history is. 
The first televised national leaders' debate was held in 1968. There was one debate, half in English and half in French. They were organised by the primary Canadian news outlets of the time (CTV/CBC), working together. At this time the news was viewed as a "public good". 
Robert Stanfield (PC) and Tommy Douglas (NDP) could not speak French. Real Caouette (Railliement creditiste) could not speak English. Pierre Trudeau (Lib) was fluently bilingual. Some accommodations were made. 
Incidentally, in the federal election of 1962 Lester Pearson (Lib) challenged John Diefenbaker (PC) to a televised debate. Diefenbaker refused. 
Two federal elections went by (1972, 1974) without any televised leaders' debates. In 1979, a debate was held. Organised by CBC/CTV/Global/TVA, all in English. It was moderated by David Johnston, then Dean of the Faculty of Law at Western University, later to be appointed Governot General by Stephen Harper. The questions were posed by a panel of journalists. 
In 1984 there were 3 debates. 1 in French, 1 in English, and a special debate in English on women's issues. 1988 saw 2 debates, one in English and one in French. The same occurred for the 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2004 elections. 
In 2005/06, there were 4 debates, 2 in French and 2 in English. One pair was held in Vancouver and the other pair was held in Quebec, all with the same organisers. The 2008 election returned to the two-debate format. 
2011 also had two debates, one in English and one in French. The date of the French debate had to be moved to avoid conflict with a Montreal Canadiens playoff game. 
In 2015, CPC PM Stephen Harper made the unprecedented move of refusing to participate in the 2 nationally organised television debates. The CPC wanted 5 privately organised debates instead. One was hosted by Macleans magazine, one by the Globe & Mail, 
one by the Aurea Foundation and Facebook Canada, one by Quebecor, and Harper finally agreed to the French debate by the media consortium, but not the English one. Aurea, incidentally, funds right-wing think-tanks and gave a platform to Steve Bannon.
This time around, there is a new Leaders' Debates Commission which was formed to reduce bias in the process. The Commission is comprised of David Johnston, a representative from each of the NDP, the CPC, and the Liberal Party, a representative of the CBC, a history professor, a human rights activist, and a representative from the Aboriginal People's Television Network. There are many on the right who feel this makes the commission unfairly biased towards the Liberals, but it's hard to imagine that they would be happy with anything less than a completely right-wing organisation.  This Commission is organising two televised debates, one in English and one in French. As is now the Canadian tradition. 
Macleans/CityTV wants to host a debate (with Paul Wells as moderator) & the Munk Debates wants to host a debate. Both can be seen as quite biased organisers. Paul Wells wrote a glowingly favourable book about Harper. The Munk Debates are administered by the Aurea Foundation, mentioned previously. 
Munk Debates' past speakers include Jordan Peterson, Nigel Farage, Henry Kissinger, Newt Gingrich, along with Bannon. Aurea Foundation supports the Fraser Institute, along with at least 7 other neo-liberal (far-right) think-tanks in Canada. 
The Fraser Institute and the others supported by Aurea have a long-standing role of churning out "reports" that further the Conservative agenda. These are guided by political ideology rather that scientific principles & are usually wildly skewed if not downright inaccurate. 
Yet, in recent years the Canadian media has slavishly reported every questionable report without challenging the findings. This includes the CBC. 
So, you see, both the debates that PM Trudeau has declined to attend are traps, plain and simple. This is not offering Canadians more opportunity to see the leaders in action. This is offering right-wing interests opportunities to tear down the Liberal Prime Minister. 
I believe we Canadians would like to have a leader who can see a trap for what it is and not wander blindly into it. 
There are many ways to skew a debate, as I am sure Ms Raitt is well aware. The moderator can cut off a debater's responses, or allow others to talk over or interrupt. The panel can throw "softball" questions to the favoured debater and "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions to the one they wish to discredit. 
It is telling that CPC MPs are trying to shame the PM into entering into a debate that is stacked against him. It is a bullying tactic. It is not befitting a party that wishes to govern Canada. It is the behaviour of a party that is interested in power, not public good. 
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)