Politically Neutral? Can a legalistic organization claim that status?

by OrphanCrow 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OrphanCrow

  I found a document that discusses the Canadian Tax law for religions.

  http://www.carters.ca/pub/seminar/church/2010/kjc0824.pdf

  I have long held the view that the org/WTS says that it is non-political yet they behave like a political organization. And it bothers me that religions are restricted from political activity yet the org has always been political. This is what the CRA says about religions that get involved in politics:

  
  PART IV: POLITICAL ACTIVITY
  Political Purpose
  – All religious institutes with charitable status are required by law to have exclusively charitable purposes (as determined at common law)
  – An organization established for a political purpose cannot be a charity
  – The courts have determined political purposes to be those that seek to:
  Further the interest of a political party or support a political party or candidate for public office, or
  Retain, oppose, or change the law, policy or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country
  – CRA will look at the stated purpose of a religious institute, as well as its activities to determine whether it has adopted political purposes

  So that is what has me curious. The line I bolded:

  Retain, oppose, or change the law, policy or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country

  The Org/WTS does exactly what the CRA says they aren't allowed to do and still retain tax status. I can think of many times that the WTS has opposed the law in both Canada and a foreign country. And not only that, but the WTS' big cheese in the law department is the Glen How firm in Canada.

  In fact, it was/is Canadian lawyers who represent the org in Russia and in the European courts. Opposing the law of foreign countries and challenging court decisions in Russia and elsewhere, trying to change laws. And disregarding court decisions.

  How is the org/WTS not political according to the CRA definition?

  For background reading on the org's legalistic structuring and activities, this is a good paper:

  Disciplined Litigation, Vigilant Litigation, and Deformation: Dramatic Organization Change in Jehovah's Witnesses

  And another good paper:

  The Jehovah's Witnesses and their plan to expand first amendment freedoms
  
• 

  Incognito

  Opposing the law of foreign countries and challenging court decisions in Russia and elsewhere, trying to change laws.
  

  The initial reference you provide is in regard to changing municipal, Provincial or Canadian Law within Canada. Although W. G. H. & Associates is a Canadian law firm, the Canadian restriction on changing or opposing the law I expect, would not apply to laws in other countries unless that country also has restrictions in place.

  That said, WT & JWs (through the law firm) seem to take pride in the changes made to laws within Canada which benefit WT/JWs, much of which is attributed to Glen How himself.

  Glen How & Associates
  

  Perhaps WGH was (technically) not retained by WT but acting independently from WT when fighting for laws beneficial to WT/JWs (ie: JW freedom to preach and JW right to refuse blood), thereby not putting WT at risk in acting on those matters.
• 

  AbusedandPissed

  So by your definition, a person on trial for murder is trying to change the policy of the laws. No, they are defending themselves within the confines of the law.
• 

  credulity

  "Perhaps WGH was (technically) not retained by WT but acting independently from WT..."

  I can't envisage it being legally relevant whether legal work is done in-house or not. However, OrphanCrow overlooks the important sentence "An organization established for a political purpose". "established for". An organisation established for the sole purpose of opposing fox hunting - advocating that the current law is retained or is changed, as applicable - is established for a political purpose and cannot be charitable. WTS is not "established for" a political purpose of this kind. It is more like a charity established to provide aid for persons with a certain illness which might, incidentally, lobby for changes to the law which would assist persons with the illness in question. As long as such lobbying doesn't become a dominant and resource-hogging activity of the charity, a national charity regulator shouldn't have a problem with the lobbying.

  It is, nevertheless, deceptive of Glen How & Associates to present itself as a neutral and commercial law firm, when it is nothing more than a legal front for WTS, its sole client.
• 

  Vidiot

  Considering how much - if given the chance - the WTS would get in bed with the Christian Right if they ever achieved power, I'd say...

  ...not so much.
• 

  TD

  So by your definition, a person on trial for murder is trying to change the policy of the laws.
  

  I guess I'm not grasping the analogy.

  Wouldn't a defense against murder, revolve around the innocence of the accused rather than an attempt to change laws that define murder?

  Please don't misunderstand. I don't think it is wrong to try to change laws that restrict religious and civil liberties.

  But even as a letter writing campaign, I don't see how it could truly be aplolitical.
  
• 

  Incognito

  I can't envisage it being legally relevant whether legal work is done in-house or not. - credulity

  The articles within the link provided, summarize some of Glen How's legal accomplishments in Canadian civil liberties and various other Canadian laws involving religious activities.

  While it is stated Glen How's work on behalf of JWs benefitted them, it is not clear if he or his firm was retained by WT at the time to represent their interests in those various actions. He may have acted on his own as an independent lawyer. As a practising JW, he had a vested interest in laws which impact a person's freedom to practice their chosen religion.

  So too with legal matters in other countries, is the firm retained by WT to represent them, or is the firm 'technically' acting independently from WT, even as their main office is located at the Canadian WT branch?

  In law, it comes down to evidence and what may be proven in court.

  ... to present itself as a neutral and commercial law firm, when it is nothing more than a legal front for WTS, its sole client. - credulity

  I don't recall claims of being neutral. There is substantial info on the firm's website to suggest it is not neutral but very biased towards JWs.

  Is WT its sole client, or does the firm possibly also represent other JWs that might need representation in religious matters?

  Legal representation may include matters such as involving JW parents defending against a court order forcing blood for their child, a child custody action against a non-believing spouse, or congregation elders defending their actions after child sexual assault was reported and they had forced the victim to meet with the accused.
• 

  Vidiot

  Honestly, I think a huge percentage of the Org's recent financial decisions are taken as steps to try and shore up the Org if/when they lose their tax-exempt status... as if they've been advised by their Legal Dept. that it's likely to happen in the near future.

  Which begs the question: just how dependent on tax-exemption has their business model actually been up till now?
• 

  Incognito

  Vidiot, that is a valid point.

  In Leah Remini's series on Scientology, although that org already held billions in assets, it seemed to be important to them to attain tax-exempt status which they eventually were successful in achieving.

  If WT was to lose T-E status, I suspect the implications could be significant. Not only could tax be assessed on publications and other items sold (hence the donation arrangement), but also property tax on every property held, and maybe also corporate income tax. Depending on the reasons for a status change, perhaps retroactive assessments for past years could also be demanded.