You know that a government is running amok when it threatens to send tax auditors after a registered charity, in this case the Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists, with revenues of about $16,000 a year. Apparently, the Harper government doesn’t like organizations questioning, well, anything to do with the environment or, for that matter, anything that might not be sufficiently conservative:
The rules say a charity can devote no more than 10 per cent of its resources to political activities, and none to partisan activities, but critics say the guidelines are fuzzy or can be Byzantine in their complexity.
A special squad of 15 auditors has so far targeted some 52 charities, many of them critical of Conservative government policies. Environment groups were hard hit in the first round in 2012-13, but the net has since widened to snare social justice and poverty groups, among others.
Remember, voting for conservatives is almost always bad for birds.
Sorry to see a nice birding site get mired in mudlslinging and political activism, such as this juvenile attack on a distant government. I don’t actually know that my government has run amok in asking charities to prove their status. It is just possible to be a conservative and care for conserving the environment at the same time. Looking below, I see “Corey” has a thing about conservatives. Perhaps there could be a warning to accompany his posts.
So, guilty until proven innocent?
And, yes, I have “a thing” about people who want to destroy our environment. I think that they should not hold power. And I think that birders who support conservative politicians – the ones who are actively working on behalf of industry to allow industry to destroy the environment – are fools.
Open beer – get popcorn – lean back – enjoy.
I’m conservative. I’m a birder. I’m a fool. Nice to be labeled.
Wow. Way to insult a portion of your readership. Maybe start a blog about birding and politics separate from this one? Then keep your liberal ideas away from an otherwise great birding blog?
FYI, I am both a conservative and greatly care for the environment. Which apparently according to you is impossible and makes me a fool
I am with you on that one.
I should point out, I wasn’t trying to get invested in this, I was just agreeing with Jochen
Is anyone going to defend, say, the current Republican leadership’s stance on climate change? On demanding ever more production of fossil fuels?
Will anyone defend the Bush/Cheney administration’s insistence on allowing drilling companies to not disclose the chemicals they use in fracking? Or the constant refrain from conservative Republicans out west to return control of federal lands to states so they can be mined, drilled, and deforested? Or the constant attempts to defund the EPA? (The last attempt was in June by House Republicans.) Or the constant attempts on the right to repeal the Endangered Species Act?
I didn’t think so. If you care about birds and stick with conservative parties then you are voting against what you say you care about. I don’t think saying that is at all controversial.
If you are voting for Republicans then, yes, you are a fool.
If you are conservative and support the Republican party or their ilk, then enlighten me on how their policies are good for birds? (Keep it to just birds) Because I don’t see how anything the republicans have proposed is a benefit to birds and in many cases would be worse.
I do respect your absolute right to your opinion and beliefs. I think a better method to get people to share your point of view would be with intelligent dialog and reasonable conversation.
It’s very difficult to get anyone to agree with you on any topic when you adopt the position that unless you agree 100% with me you’re a fool, end of conversation. It tends to put people off. If you’re sincere about wanting people to see things your way, you might try a more tactful approach is all I’m saying.
I don’t understand how you can be a conservative and also say you care about birds and the environment. Conservatives believe in extremely limited government. But corporations, driven by profit, have become immensely powerful and are destroying the environment. Active government is needed to restrict their actions and protect our water, air, and soil. Without strong restrictions on pollution, the use of carbon fuels, etc, and incentives for renewables, the planet will die. That requires a powerful, activist state, the opposite of what conservatives generally believe in. I suppose there’s some way to be a conservative who believes in limited government except for purposes of protecting the environment.
Even as a liberal voter and Canadian, this blog post (and especially the tone of the comments) rubbed me the wrong way.
There are many reasons that people vote conservative – not every conservative wants small government and completely unregulated markets. Some vote conservative for social reasons or because they believe in fiscal conservativism.
Rather than call conservatives fools, it would be more productive to encourage bird-loving conservatives (who do exist) to contact their local politicians and let them know how they feel about issues relating to birds. For example, I recently emailed an MP in support of a new national park in the Okanagan Valley – there are lots of issues like this that we can all encourage by making our voices heard.
We need to stop the idea that environmental protection is a partisan issue. In order to do that, we need people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum to speak out in favor of birds and the environment.
I think it would be better to depoliticize environmentalism. We have Nixon to thank for the endangered species act and Margaret Thatcher to thank for the international treaty that saved the ozone layer. It’s too important to become a political and cultural football.
I agree with ‘Joe F’ and ‘TC’.
The description on Fat Birder (where I found the link to this site) says “everybody welcome”.
Perhaps this should be changed to ‘everybody welcome, as long as you agree with me 100% on everything, otherwise you are a fool.’
Conservatives might be bad for birds but liberals are bad for people! Half joking. From what I’ve seen neither does much good for people or for birds.
…. and next time you have something bad to say about any government will the header image be the applicable national flag.?
Lots of us Canadians avoid political labels and work hard to conserve (It’s that word again ! ) and preserve. Whatever our stripe we respect the Maple Leaf flag and keep on birding.
You know that someone’s reasoning is running amok when he blames others (in this case, conservatives) for hating and being bad for the environment while pretending to care for it more than he actually does.
I remember a post by ‘Corey’ saying that all birders should attend the ‘peoples climate march’ in New York. So much for caring for the environment. The protesters trashed the place. Hypocrite.
Henry, you are a fool and a moron. New York City was not “trashed.” Garbage cans were mostly removed from the route and people were forced, by the large crowds, to stand in place while awaiting their turn to march. Yes, it is regrettable there was litter but NYC is pretty darn effective at cleaning up after large gatherings and that is exactly what happened.
And do you really think some litter is the equivalent to, say, trying to abolish the EPA? Or denying the fact that Climate Change exists?
We often use national flags when writing about a specific country. No offense to Canadians in general was intended. Just conservative ones.
So if there are no trash cans, it is OK to leave your trash wherever you please? And also, NYC shouldn’t have to clean up a huge mess that people leave behind during a large gathering. The people attending the event should have the decency and common sense to take their garbage to where they can properly dispose of it.