Will this Kiwi grow up in a free country?
A new bill introduced in New Zealand's parliament threatens to crack down on non-profits. "A new law could strip charities of their tax-free status if they get too involved in politics. The move has led to fears that charities such as Greenpeace and the Sensible Sentencing Trust may be less inclined to speak out," says the One News website. According to the new bill, many tax breaks will be taken away from NGOs, and harsh audits will be authorized to determine the purpose of NGO activities; supporters say that the bill will combat abuses in the non-profit sphere in the country.
The reason Russia Blog pays any attention at all to this Kiwi controversy is the fact that Wellington's legislation seems to be more strict than the law issued by the Russian Duma and signed by Vladimir Putin. There was a huge negative media outburst a year ago in the Western media regarding the Russian NGO bill when it was being discussed. On October 19th the new Russian law came into effect, sparking another wave of outraged articles and reports with scary titles like "Crackdown on Democracy", etc. The question is: Where is the well-deserved outrage in the American and European human rights communities about this new New Zealand bill? Or are human rights activists implying that somehow freedom is less precious for New Zealanders than for Russians?
A recent report issued by the French NGO Reporters Without Borders ranks the genocide-racked Democratic Republic of the Congo and Hamas-ruled Palestine ahead of Russia in freedom of expression. A similar wacky logic seems to be applied to the NGO situation; a very modest Russian law, which requires registration as in any other Western country sparks outrage and drops Russia to nearly last in the world for freedom of expression and association. A similar set of regulations, but much harsher, passed in New Zealand and seemed to go unnoticed.
There might be only two reasons for this situation. Perhaps Western human rights activists care only about Russia, and have nothing in their hearts and minds for the good people of New Zealand, or maybe the Kremlin found a way to change the laws of this distant country to distract people and improve its own image. We hope our readers understand that the latter piece of speculation is a joke.
UPDATE: Welcome, Belmont Club readers!
The rationale (excuse) will be that Russia is a much larger country and therefore subject to a greater monitoring.
Now, what's the excuse for censoring intelligently presented pro-Russian views from a center stage. Views that aren't terrorist, racist or anti-Western?
My Pov to this:
"Democracy", "Freedom of Press" and other are terms, that evolved over time. Some time age, i.e. 50-100 years ago, they mean something, they mean real freedom in many aspects of human life.
Today they are only tools for national interests of some countries. Think of "freedom" in Iraq, for example.
So, why bother about New Zealand? N.Z. has not nuclear weapons, or huge deposits of oil and gas. And N.Z. has not own political positions in world problems (maybe I'm wrong).
So, New Zealand is unimportant for interests of many, but not Russia. That's an answer :)
Its clear from the benevelent US installed government that exists in Iraq today that USG knows really very little about democracy and how to promote it. So, why do we bother with castigating Russia? Such hyperphobic name-calling is an act of aggression, the roots of which can be found most identifiably in the third reich! Read history, if it is still available in US bookstores!
hi all,
here in australia...as far as I know...
CHARITIES are charities, they supply goods and services for people in need
if a CHARITY is political, then they register as a political party
CHARITIES here have tax exemptions....etc.
POLITICAL parties have tax situations etc.
RELIGIOUS organisations, are exempt from some tax too etc.
so I would guess that it is the MAIN content of the organisation, and what is its first priority
I wish sometimes that people would state the countries , they are referring to : rather than
Western.....
its an old reference and should be deleted from the vocabulary...grin
JHH
Lois, I believe history was banned from US bookstores some time in the last six years (probably under Ashcroft, that jerk). Not sure when it happened, since nobody here in the US cares about such trivialities. I am curious though, of this "third reich" you speak of. Please do elaborate.
Oh, and I believe you meant "hyperbolic" not "hyperphobic".
Umm JHH_, don't mean to be a jerk or anything, and lord knows I am not one to speak, considering that I never add anything of substance to the comment section of this blog...but seriously, if you must comment on every post, just do it once, ok.
Unless someone responds to one of your comments, there is no reason to continue adding comments to the same post. Also, learn basic english [sic] grammer, and then try to use it on occasion.
Finally, please don't post when you are drinking or on drugs.