One of the attorneys friendly to the Zundel cause sent the following fax to the Zundel-Haus overnight:
"Ernst, HLI lost its case in the Federal Court of Appeal and is no longer registered as a charity. It is an extremely important case with serious repercussions for the Jewish organizations."
Here is a wake-up call for Canada - not directly affecting us but providing golden opportunities for reaping additional Revisionist hay.
This case was battled out between Human Life International in Canada Inc. (appellant) and the Minister of National Revenue, (respondent). What it means, to put it crudely, is that the Pro-Lifers had their tax exempt status yanked on grounds that they were not devoting substantially all of their resources to educational purposes and were, in fact, using tax exempt status to promote a particular political point of view.
On the surface - and many will read it that way! - this means that Canada, along with most if not all Western states, is one step closer to the New World Order. What got the ball rolling, to put it graphically, is that the Pro-Lifers sent a post card to all members of the Canadian government depicting a 20-22 week old aborted fetus.
The Tax Revenue people moved in and strong-armed the Pro-Lifers. The latter appealed, and the judgment below shows how and why they lost.
I would like you to read the following quotes and apply them to such organizations as B'nai Brith, the ADL, the Jewish World Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and even such spin-off attack poodle outfits like Nizkor and HateWatch - all of which, from what we know, enjoy tax exempt status as "educationally" and not politically oriented organizations.
Use your imagination:
"In certain publications and material disseminated by HLIC, it is clear its purpose is to promote an anti-abortion attitude of mind. In addition, we see HLIC promoting its own interpretation of other controversial issues such as sex education in schools, homosexuality, pornography, universal day care, contraception, sterilization, sexual permissiveness and "planned" parenthood, euthanasia, reproductive technology, over-population, and the "new age" movement. This is evidenced in the following items: (shortened here)
". . . Brochures and advertisements seeking support for a "pro-life" position"
"Literature disseminated by HLIC . . . and other literature such as "The American Holocaust" and posters and postcards to shock the reader."
"All of the (sic) these materials are strongly worded to promote HLIC's views on the abortion issue and other controversial issues.
"Thus an organization such as HLIC which espouses a specific cause and seeks to sway the public to its way of thinking, would not qualify as charitable under the category of advancing education.
"There is no case law, to our knowledge, that would support a finding promoting an organization's position on such issues as abortion, sex education in schools, and the other issues mentioned above, is charitable. In fact, the courts have found that purposes that are related to promoting one side of a controversial issue or cause are not charitable at law.
"In addition, many of HLIC's position go well beyond what is considered as being beneficial to the community. A publicity campaign that persuades the public to reject the values and products of an industry or organization is not considered a charitable activity.
"The courts have established that activities which are designed essentially to sway public opinion on a controversial social issue are not charitable, but are political in the sense understood at law."
"It appears on the contrary that HLIC is devoting substantial resources, which includes financial, material and human, on political activities which are not incidental and ancillary to charitable objects. That is, purposes and activities that are directed at legislative change or change in public policy or attitudes are considered political in nature, and not charitable at law. For example, sending "shock value" postcards to federal Members of Parliament, helping to organize the "March for Life" on Parliament Hill, and various publications, brochures and advertisements promoting HLIC's views are considered as political activities.
"With respect to whether its activities are for the advancement of education, the appellant did not press this issue in argument and I think it is without merit. It is well established in the jurisprudence of this Court that, to be an activity for the advancement of education, it must be directed toward the formal training of the mind or the improvement of a useful branch of human knowledge. . . . (I)ts literature appears to be predominantly of a tendentious or polemical character that one would not normally associate with the formal training of the mind. Nor has the appellant demonstrated how its activities would amount to the improvement of a useful branch of human knowledge. . . . The impression one gets from the material is that it is primarily concerned with the dissemination of a set of opinions on various social issues and the appellant has not convincingly demonstrated anything to the contrary."
Then comes a most interesting definition of "TRUSTS FOR A POLITICAL PURPOSE", to wit:
"(T)rusts for political purposes include, inter alia, trusts of which a direct and principal purpose is either
"(i) to further the interests of a particular political party; or
"(ii) to procure changes in the laws of this country; or
"(iii) to procure changes in the laws of foreign countries; or
"(iv) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in this country; or
"(v) to procure a reversal of government policy or of particular decisions of governmental authorities in a foreign country.
"Courts should not be called upon to make such decisions as it involves granting or denying legitimacy to what are essentially political views; namely what are the proper forms of conduct, though not mandated by present law, to be urged on other members of the community . . how can we judge which are the views beneficial to society whose contribution merits the name of charity? I have no doubt that the views espoused by adherents of the appellant are sincerely held and for the most part are regarded by them as matters of faith. . . . Any determination by this Court as to whether the propagation of such views is beneficial to the community and thus worthy of temporal support though tax exemption would be essentially a political determination and is not appropriate for the court to make.
"Essentially, (the) argument is that a denial of tax exemption to those wishing to advocate a certain opinion is a denial of freedom of expression on this basis. On this premise it would be equally arguable that anyone who wishes the psychic satisfaction of having his personal views pressed on his fellow citizens is constitutionally entitled to a tax credit for any money he contributes for this purpose. . . . The guarantee of freedom of expression in paragraph 2(b) of the Charter is not a guarantee of public funding through tax exemptions for the propagation of opinions no matter how good or how sincerely held."
So what does all this mean? It means that by yanking the tax exempt status from an essentially conservative, traditional organization, the Dark Forces have cast wide open the door to precisely that kind of legal challenge (or challenges) as to what, exactly, they are doing with the money they get: Educate? Or lobby, even terrorize with legal means, within existing institutions and without?
Thought for the Day:
"When one's employer is a democratic state, the game is supposed to have some rules."
(From "Every Spy a Prince" by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, p. 2)
Back to Table of Contents of the May 1998 ZGrams