NATION

PASSWORD

Should charities refuse donations on political grounds?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Should charities refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the donor?

Yes
15
48%
No
8
26%
Maybe
7
23%
I don't know
1
3%
 
Total votes : 31

User avatar
GrarG
Attaché
 
Posts: 78
Founded: Apr 19, 2006
Iron Fist Consumerists

Should charities refuse donations on political grounds?

Postby GrarG » Fri May 10, 2019 1:52 am

I was reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -charities

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Quick overview if you don't want to read link; semi-famous hooligan turned anti-islam campaigner Tommy Robinson is running in the EU elections in order to stick the middle finger up at all our closest friends and allies on the continent. In a rare display of goodwill / cynical ploy to improve his image he has offered up his (potential) MEP salary to charities that work with victims of the 'asian' child rape gangs that plague our country. The charities are having none of this, and refuse to accept the money:

“Those who have suffered sexual and physical abuse were failed by those who should have protected them. But Tommy Robinson is no ally for the children he claims to stand up for. Tommy doesn’t care about the rights of women and girls – he is exploiting the pain of survivors and their families to fuel racist hate for his own gain.”

While the above may be true (or not, maybe he does care, I'm not a mind reader), cynical ploy or no it's essentially a charity turning down a considerable donation (potentially several hundred thousand Euro over a 5 year term) simply because they don't like the guy giving it.

Personally I'm struggling to see a benefit to this. The money will be used as they wish and presumably will be of great help to the people who the charity wants to help. Accepting money from someone is not and should not be seen as tacit agreement with them or their cause and charitable organisations should remain apolitical in general, focusing purely on doing what good they can with whatever the universe gives them to do it. Besides if this clown does get elected then at least some good will come of it.

What do you think NSG? I added a poll but it's not very good tbh.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 819
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri May 10, 2019 2:05 am

Speaking as someone who works in the UK charity sector, refusing this money is a no brainer. An organisation simply can't project itself as being on the side of abused and victimised people if it's linked to someone who promotes abuse and victimisation. There's too much risk of the reputational damage driving away people who need the support and compromising more valuable donations. Robinson is toxic and not to be touched with a barge pole. Charities are under zero obligation to help him out with his publicity stunt.

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 15372
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Fri May 10, 2019 2:07 am

I think it's entirely the decision of the charities in question, but refusing a sizable donation due to not wanting to be associated with the donor sounds very much like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I understand the charity's desire to make a principled stand, but that principled stand does little for the children in their care. On the other hand, there's another question here about whether it's appropriate for an electoral candidate to make this kind of an announcement- it could easily be regarded as a kind of bribery or emotional blackmail; "if you don't vote for me, you're denying the children this money!" Obviously individuals in paid public positions have every right to dispose of their income any way that they wish, including donating however much they wish to charity. However, I would argue that making this sort of pledge prior to an election ought to be seen as an unethical attempt to influence people's vote.
Ascended to Modhood on the 14th September 2016
The Grand Fascist Empire of Old Tyrannia
⚜ IMPERIVM MAGNVM FASCISTICVM TYRANNIAE ANTIQVAE
Factbook | Tyrannian Empire | Tyrannian Fascism
Everything for Queen and Country.

User avatar
Sanctum and Ultima
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 132
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctum and Ultima » Fri May 10, 2019 2:11 am

Nope, but we should hide the fact that (s)he donated something to our charity.
This nation actually does not really represent my OOC/IRL views.
9axes: https://9axes.github.io/results.html?a= ... &h=85&i=23
RIP NOTRE DAME
Inner Lands wrote:One men, multiplied by two, divided in four, and obligated to live in eight realms each part of it.

Corrupt Dictator Doges wrote:The former USSR, but with food
United Realms of Sanctum and Ultima
Sæþvir Činovidatăriþ Qahtașăr uc Vilyraðe
A nation set in a world where nations compete for a territory in space...
Now, after getting lots of territory in outer space, our nation was thrown into disarray due to technocrats and commies.
Q&A
PMT nations are the best (change my mind)

User avatar
Exxosia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 457
Founded: May 09, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Exxosia » Fri May 10, 2019 2:17 am

Considering how the UK is a state where the media portrayal of anything is more important than the realities, I think the charity should be allowed to refuse the donation as any help the money would bring is less important than keeping up appearances and losing a potentially larger amount of donations.

If this was almost any other country, I would say they should accept the donations.

User avatar
Esternial
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 51826
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Fri May 10, 2019 2:20 am

If an asshole offers you X amount of his money, take it. That's X amount of money in potentially asshole-ish things that you just prevented.

Accepting a donation doesn't enter you into an obligation not to call the donator a dick.
Last edited by Esternial on Fri May 10, 2019 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Abarri
Envoy
 
Posts: 269
Founded: Aug 10, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Abarri » Fri May 10, 2019 2:24 am

Charities might not be in a good position to refuse donations on political grounds. The donation helps charities carry out whatever mission they have. As Old Tyrannia pointed out, the principled stand is not enough to care for beneficiaries. They're nonprofit firms anyway with proceeds used for operations and not income; I don't think the donor's identity, character, or beliefs matter that much.

A better idea would be to refuse donations on the grounds of its nature, i.e. charities should reject donations of illegal or questionable origin. Maybe the money has been laundered, or the donation itself is unsuitable for operations (e.g. giving junk food for a food drive).
Click to see factbook entries. Please ignore the income tax rate provided by NS.

Prefers The South Pacific. Spanish is not my native language. I often take things for granted. Green is my favorite color. Collects music CDs. A male who's an almost-libertarian. Nominal non-practicing Protestant. Eh, to heck with it, I'm unaffiliated. Poetaster.
How I found NS. Try not guessing where I reside.
We need to accept that there are things beyond our control.
Also, if having a letter in a flag is a sin, I'm proud to be a vexillographical sinner.

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7757
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 2:24 am

We need to turn this around. Tommy Robinson - if he was genuinely concerned about children who had been abused at all - could donate money anonymously.

There's zero question here that he's once again using anything he can get his mitts on to continue to be a fascist piece of shit. So really, what we should ask is the following:

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
Sanctum and Ultima
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 132
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctum and Ultima » Fri May 10, 2019 2:25 am

Caracasus wrote:We need to turn this around. Tommy Robinson - if he was genuinely concerned about children who had been abused at all - could donate money anonymously.

There's zero question here that he's once again using anything he can get his mitts on to continue to be a fascist piece of shit. So really, what we should ask is the following:

Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

Do not Ctrl+C + Ctrl+V my opinions lol
This nation actually does not really represent my OOC/IRL views.
9axes: https://9axes.github.io/results.html?a= ... &h=85&i=23
RIP NOTRE DAME
Inner Lands wrote:One men, multiplied by two, divided in four, and obligated to live in eight realms each part of it.

Corrupt Dictator Doges wrote:The former USSR, but with food
United Realms of Sanctum and Ultima
Sæþvir Činovidatăriþ Qahtașăr uc Vilyraðe
A nation set in a world where nations compete for a territory in space...
Now, after getting lots of territory in outer space, our nation was thrown into disarray due to technocrats and commies.
Q&A
PMT nations are the best (change my mind)

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 819
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri May 10, 2019 2:27 am

Old Tyrannia wrote:Obviously individuals in paid public positions have every right to dispose of their income any way that they wish, including donating however much they wish to charity. However, I would argue that making this sort of pledge prior to an election ought to be seen as an unethical attempt to influence people's vote.

It would be easier to take seriously if Robinson had managed to find a charity willing to accept the money before making his announcement. He presumably knows that charities couldn't accept and is seeking to portray himself as a victim of political correctness. If he'd wanted to support the work of charities he could do so privately and anonymously to spare them this problem. If he wanted to make the point that he wasn't going to keep his MEP's salary he could have paid it to cancer research, the DEC or many other causes without having to make the obviously racist offer to use it for the victims of crimes by non-whites.

User avatar
Esternial
P2TM RP Mentor
 
Posts: 51826
Founded: May 09, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Esternial » Fri May 10, 2019 2:27 am

Caracasus wrote:Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7757
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 2:36 am

Esternial wrote:
Caracasus wrote:Is it acceptable to allow horrible racist cunts to use charitable donations to stir up shit?

It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.


Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
Sanctum and Ultima
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 132
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctum and Ultima » Fri May 10, 2019 2:37 am

Caracasus wrote:
Esternial wrote:It shouldn't be illegal, most definitely, but it's not like the media should frame it as anything other than a stunt.

A cunt stunt, if you will.


Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.

Be careful when arguing with an alt-right, as they're idiots
This nation actually does not really represent my OOC/IRL views.
9axes: https://9axes.github.io/results.html?a= ... &h=85&i=23
RIP NOTRE DAME
Inner Lands wrote:One men, multiplied by two, divided in four, and obligated to live in eight realms each part of it.

Corrupt Dictator Doges wrote:The former USSR, but with food
United Realms of Sanctum and Ultima
Sæþvir Činovidatăriþ Qahtașăr uc Vilyraðe
A nation set in a world where nations compete for a territory in space...
Now, after getting lots of territory in outer space, our nation was thrown into disarray due to technocrats and commies.
Q&A
PMT nations are the best (change my mind)

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7757
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 2:40 am

Sanctum and Ultima wrote:
Caracasus wrote:
Oh yeah, I mean how would you legislate that? I was talking more whether it was morally acceptable.

Honestly, this is another example of how General is slowly becoming alt-right talking point after alt-right talking point. In what sane universe would this story be framed in a way that makes it appear the charity is the one on morally/ethically dubious grounds? Tommy Robinson is very clearly the one acting in very bad faith here.

Be careful when arguing with an alt-right, as they're idiots


Some are, sure. Most are just arguing in bad faith. There's zero point in actually engaging with them aside from pointing out how they're arguing from a position of bad faith to others.
Last edited by Caracasus on Fri May 10, 2019 2:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
The United Chinese Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 41
Founded: Jan 26, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Chinese Republic » Fri May 10, 2019 2:40 am

I don't think so. Even if you hide the identity of the person donating, that person may broadcast that they've donated to your charity, thus associating them to your charity. That's not good if you want to keep a reputation.
A 13.7 civilization, according to this index.

PRO-GUAIDO (Venezuelan chair of parliament...)
OPTION 1 (Denounced)
CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIST PARTY (though not Trump) (Time for a Monarchist Party in the USA?
DELICIOUS AND TASTY (Meatless burgers are Satan's work)

User avatar
Sanctum and Ultima
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 132
Founded: Mar 31, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Sanctum and Ultima » Fri May 10, 2019 2:42 am

The United Chinese Republic wrote:I don't think so. Even if you hide the identity of the person donating, that person may broadcast that they've donated to your charity, thus associating them to your charity. That's not good if you want to keep a reputation.

Well, just make them *oof* and call it a car accident or smth to cover it up
This nation actually does not really represent my OOC/IRL views.
9axes: https://9axes.github.io/results.html?a= ... &h=85&i=23
RIP NOTRE DAME
Inner Lands wrote:One men, multiplied by two, divided in four, and obligated to live in eight realms each part of it.

Corrupt Dictator Doges wrote:The former USSR, but with food
United Realms of Sanctum and Ultima
Sæþvir Činovidatăriþ Qahtașăr uc Vilyraðe
A nation set in a world where nations compete for a territory in space...
Now, after getting lots of territory in outer space, our nation was thrown into disarray due to technocrats and commies.
Q&A
PMT nations are the best (change my mind)

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52274
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
New York Times Democracy

Postby Risottia » Fri May 10, 2019 2:46 am

GrarG wrote:And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Yes.
Charity donations aren't meant to be reputation bleach.
Statanist through and through.
Evilutionist Atheist Crusadjihadist. "Darwinu Akhbar! Dawkins vult!"
Founder of the NSG Peace Prize Committee.
I'm back.
SUMMER, BLOODY SUMMER!

User avatar
An Alan Smithee Nation
Senator
 
Posts: 3527
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby An Alan Smithee Nation » Fri May 10, 2019 2:46 am

They should refuse the money. Accepting it inevitably co-opts them into Tommy Robinson's camp in the eyes of beholders, and will in all likelihood lose them more in donations from donor's who don't want to be associated with a shit like Tommy. There are also quite strict rules for charities in the UK on being 'political'.
Last edited by An Alan Smithee Nation on Fri May 10, 2019 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Holy Trinity: Fatty Arbuckle, Oliver Hardy, Boris Johnson

User avatar
Caracasus
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 7757
Founded: Apr 23, 2015
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Caracasus » Fri May 10, 2019 2:50 am

Risottia wrote:
GrarG wrote:And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Yes.
Charity donations aren't meant to be reputation bleach.


Agreed. Additionally, this isn't even an attempt at whitewashing your reputation. Look at why he's donating the money...
As an editor I seam to spend an awful lot of thyme going threw issues and checking that they're no oblivious errars. Its a tough job but someone's got too do it!



Issues editor, not a moderator.

User avatar
Hugolande
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: May 10, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Hugolande » Fri May 10, 2019 3:13 am

I understand the charity's reluctance to take the money, but I am not sure how their refusing it doesn't keep Robinson from using them.

1. By offering the donation he comes off as generous. Especially since he appears to be willing to sacrifice a real amount of money here. He can't be in it for the money, even if he is in it for the hate, and not the love.

2. He gets to draw attention to an issue that aligns with his politics, reminding people that white people can be victims too etc.

3. Another non political entity takes a political stand and his opponents act ungenerously. The controversy thus gives him more good PR.

A cynical person can say that Robinson doesn't real care, but then he comes out looking like smart politician.

The charity can't avoid being used by rejecting the offer.

The real monsters are the people who would boycott a charity just because a racist* donated to it.

* I am not sure of he really is a racist. There has been to much crying wolf.

User avatar
Uan aa Boa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 819
Founded: Apr 23, 2017
Democratic Socialists

Postby Uan aa Boa » Fri May 10, 2019 3:52 am

Hugolande wrote:The charity can't avoid being used by rejecting the offer.

You say "the charity," but there is no charity. Robinson hasn't given any evidence or details of an actual offer. He has a campaign video that at one point says "100% of my EU salary will go to the child victims of sexual grooming." That's it, no specifics. In response 40 charities in that field have signed a letter basically telling him to fuck off. It might arguably be better for them simply to ignore him, but there's no specific charity that's in enough contact with Robinson to be used by him.

I don't think this makes Robinson (real name Yaxley-Lennon, but I guess Death Eater meets Beatles isn't the image he's looking for) look generous. He needs to address the potential criticism that he's trying to profit from the gravy train he likes to criticise, and he's found a way to make a very thinly veiled racist point while doing so.

User avatar
An Alan Smithee Nation
Senator
 
Posts: 3527
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby An Alan Smithee Nation » Fri May 10, 2019 4:17 am

Good people don't shout about their charitable donations from the roof tops.
The Holy Trinity: Fatty Arbuckle, Oliver Hardy, Boris Johnson

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 133517
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Fri May 10, 2019 4:33 am

GrarG wrote:I was reading this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -charities

And it got me thinking; should charitable organisations refuse donations because they disagree politically or morally with the one making the donation?

Quick overview if you don't want to read link; semi-famous hooligan turned anti-islam campaigner Tommy Robinson is running in the EU elections in order to stick the middle finger up at all our closest friends and allies on the continent. In a rare display of goodwill / cynical ploy to improve his image he has offered up his (potential) MEP salary to charities that work with victims of the 'asian' child rape gangs that plague our country. The charities are having none of this, and refuse to accept the money:

“Those who have suffered sexual and physical abuse were failed by those who should have protected them. But Tommy Robinson is no ally for the children he claims to stand up for. Tommy doesn’t care about the rights of women and girls – he is exploiting the pain of survivors and their families to fuel racist hate for his own gain.”

While the above may be true (or not, maybe he does care, I'm not a mind reader), cynical ploy or no it's essentially a charity turning down a considerable donation (potentially several hundred thousand Euro over a 5 year term) simply because they don't like the guy giving it.

More likely they're turning down a donation of €0.00.
Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Banter For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Snark That Are Themselves The Mere Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Sarcasm
He/Him

Dangerous this Jack o' Hearts.
With his kiss
the riot
starts

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18649
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Fri May 10, 2019 4:41 am

Probably have to be a judgement call on the part of the charity.
Would the donation itself cause more harm by enabling said donator than the charity could do good with the donation in question.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
GrarG
Attaché
 
Posts: 78
Founded: Apr 19, 2006
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby GrarG » Fri May 10, 2019 6:53 am

Since there seems to be a lot being made of the idea that this is purely a cynical attention-grabbing stunt, which I do agree with but still veer on the side of the ends justifying the means (the ends here being that the money is put to a good cause, not that the donor gets 'good' publicity)

Follow up question then; for those who say yes, would it change if the donation was made anonymously so, say, only a few people working at the charity would ever know about the source of the donation?
Earth is hurtling at full speed towards total ecosystem collapse and, with it, the end of all life on this planet.

All other issues are utterly irrelevant in the face of this fact.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anglia-Saxia, Auzkhia, Cannot think of a name, Duvniask, Heloin, Kowani, Ostroeuropa, Shrillland, Souseiseki, The Greater Ohio Valley, The Grims, US-SSR, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron