Canada moves against the HSUS
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:15 pm
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 2011:
Canada Revenue Agency moves to muzzle animal charities
BY MERRITT CLIFTON
OTTAWA–The Canada Revenue Agency on February 5, 2011 published new regulations governing animal charities which would revoke the nonprofit status of any who oppose vivisection, hunting, trapping, the fur trade, seal-clubbing, animal agriculture, and any other legal use of animals.
“Under common law, an activity or purpose is only charitable when it provides a benefit to humans,” the Canada Revenue Agency regulations assert. “As far back as the 19th century, the courts have stated that promoting the welfare of animals ‘has for its object, not merely the protection of the animals themselves, but the advancement of morals and education among [people].’ To be charitable, the benefit to humans must always take precedence over any benefit to animals. 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.”
The Canada Revenue Agency interpretation of common law governing charities parallels the interpretation that the United Kingdom has applied since the 19th century to constrain the opposition of major animal charities to vivisection and fox hunting, in particular. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the Indian Revenue Agency, however, have taken a broader view of the same common law precedents, and have not imposed a test of whether activities benefiting animals benefit humans more.
The Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations recognize that “Purposes that promote the welfare of animals may fall under the advancement of education,” or qualify for nonprofit status by “promoting the moral or ethical development of the community, upholding the administration and enforcement of the law, protecting the environment, [and/or] promoting agriculture,” but assert that “Any benefit or potential benefit to the welfare of animals must be balanced against any harm or potential harm to humans.”
“For example,” the Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations state, “the courts have decided,” in the 1947 case National Anti-Vivisection Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, “that seeking to abolish vivisection is not charitable. This is in part because, as the courts have put it, despite the suffering inflicted on animals, the ‘immense and incalculable benefits which have resulted from vivisection,’ and the ‘positive and calamitous detriment of appalling magnitude’ that would result from its abolition, outweigh any possible promotion of the moral and ethical development of the community.’”
The Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations do not directly mention trapping and sealing, but include an example making clear that Canadian animal charities may not openly oppose them: “A charity might offer courses in how to minimize harm to local wildlife and ecosystems that tend to result from human activity. However, 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.”
check out humanewatch.org
-Pete
"Audentes fortuna juvat" -"Fortune favors the bold."
Canada Revenue Agency moves to muzzle animal charities
BY MERRITT CLIFTON
OTTAWA–The Canada Revenue Agency on February 5, 2011 published new regulations governing animal charities which would revoke the nonprofit status of any who oppose vivisection, hunting, trapping, the fur trade, seal-clubbing, animal agriculture, and any other legal use of animals.
“Under common law, an activity or purpose is only charitable when it provides a benefit to humans,” the Canada Revenue Agency regulations assert. “As far back as the 19th century, the courts have stated that promoting the welfare of animals ‘has for its object, not merely the protection of the animals themselves, but the advancement of morals and education among [people].’ To be charitable, the benefit to humans must always take precedence over any benefit to animals. 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.”
The Canada Revenue Agency interpretation of common law governing charities parallels the interpretation that the United Kingdom has applied since the 19th century to constrain the opposition of major animal charities to vivisection and fox hunting, in particular. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service and the Indian Revenue Agency, however, have taken a broader view of the same common law precedents, and have not imposed a test of whether activities benefiting animals benefit humans more.
The Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations recognize that “Purposes that promote the welfare of animals may fall under the advancement of education,” or qualify for nonprofit status by “promoting the moral or ethical development of the community, upholding the administration and enforcement of the law, protecting the environment, [and/or] promoting agriculture,” but assert that “Any benefit or potential benefit to the welfare of animals must be balanced against any harm or potential harm to humans.”
“For example,” the Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations state, “the courts have decided,” in the 1947 case National Anti-Vivisection Society v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, “that seeking to abolish vivisection is not charitable. This is in part because, as the courts have put it, despite the suffering inflicted on animals, the ‘immense and incalculable benefits which have resulted from vivisection,’ and the ‘positive and calamitous detriment of appalling magnitude’ that would result from its abolition, outweigh any possible promotion of the moral and ethical development of the community.’”
The Canada Revenue Agency draft regulations do not directly mention trapping and sealing, but include an example making clear that Canadian animal charities may not openly oppose them: “A charity might offer courses in how to minimize harm to local wildlife and ecosystems that tend to result from human activity. However, 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.”
check out humanewatch.org
-Pete
"Audentes fortuna juvat" -"Fortune favors the bold."
