Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

recedite · 06-12-2012 11:14pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Having as an object “the advancement of religion” doesn’t give you any kind of free pass with respect to the usual revenue requirements about central management and control, non-profit status, etc.

I realise that. If Veritas pays dividends, it makes a profit and cannot be considered a charity. Even if the shareholders happen to be bishops.

My point is that if an organisation is "not for profit" it fulfills the first requirement to be a charity.
The second requirement is that all its energies and resources are devoted to some public good.

If a church devotes a small proportion of its resources to helping the poor, or even none at all, and the rest is spent within the church, it will still qualify as a charity on the "advancement of religion" cause.

Just as a school will still qualify on the "advancement of education" clause, even if they help nobody outside of their school community.

If a school qualifying as a charity is slightly suspect, then a religion qualifying is well dodgy. At least we all agree that education is "a good thing". Not so with religion.

Obliq · 20-12-2012 5:09pm

From the fantastic "Geoff's Shorts" - Another worthy investigation. Iona Institute gets a name-check.

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2012/12/tax-breaks-vaccine-denial-and-irish-pro.html

Tax Breaks, Vaccine Denial and Irish Pro Lifers

"............As a husband I find myself curious to read "The Three Marks of Manhood - How to be Priest, Prophet and King to your Family", a book my tax payments have effectively subsidised. Apparently it will tell me how I am "called to wield the three staffs of patriarchy in their families; the Sceptre of authority and self-discipline, the Crosier of spiritual stewardship and the Cross of redemptive suffering."

I've been married a year and three months - to date my staff wielding has not been cause for complaint. Still, perhaps I'm doing it wrong? While I dare not speak for Mrs Shorts I doubt very much a warm reception would be given to the idea of "the complementary role and call to women in their glorious femininity.".............."

Galvasean · 20-12-2012 6:09pm

There's only one true staff of manhood....

robindch · 20-12-2012 6:33pm

Ohhhh, matron!

lazygal · 20-12-2012 8:56pm

Galvasean wrote: »

There's only one true staff of manhood....

Said the actress to the bishop, 'is that a crozier in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?'

Hotblack Desiato · 20-12-2012 10:37pm

I thought the punchline was 'I wouldn't mind a belt of that'

Fleagle · 03-01-2013 12:50pm

I run a (small) charity with Revenue tax exemption. We are not allowed to do any advocacy work or political lobbying or we will lose our charitable status.

I am disgusted to find out that the Iona Institute has charitable status. We had to jump through hoops for the best part of a year to fulfill the Revenue requirements and our status can be taken away at any time if we don't stay within the requirements.

robindch · 03-01-2013 6:23pm

Fleagle wrote: »

I am disgusted to find out that the Iona Institute has charitable status.

I tend to think of the II less as an "institute" and more as a one-man pressure group.

Given the level of political effluvium that Quinn and friend(s?) generate, I wonder -- not being familiar with the legislation at all --if it would be worth communicating with TD's on the topic. And also, whether an organization like Atheist Ireland would be interested in making a few public comments on it? Certainly, the media have picked up on quite a few of Michael's recent salvos and this seems another fairly obvious case of concessions to the religious that are denied the non-religious.

opinion guy · 03-01-2013 7:47pm

Some f*cknut from this crowd was just on the radio talking utter utter bollocks about marriage and gay marriage. The result is I am now convinced we need to simply ban all marriage straight or gay, cat, dog , whatever whatever - just to spite these f*ckers

tawnyowl · 04-01-2013 2:06am

oceanclub wrote: »

This question has been asked before without any answers:

http://www.mamanpoulet.com/whos-funding-the-iona-institute/

Not sure if any of the patrons are wealthy or would chip in - I imagine Dr James Sheehan would have a few quid under the mattress:

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/personnel_patrons.php

On the other hand, DQ has been reduced to begging letters:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/12/09/spare-a-thought-this-christmas/

As to why Quinn gets on; Irish media is lazy and I presume he's on people's speed-dial. His arguments are poor and he deals mostly in stereotypes and buzzwords, but he's forceful, articulate and gets people to tune in just so they can throw metaphorical tomatoes at their TV.

P.

Looking at that begging email, I wonder if it's in breach of the Data Protection Act?

tawnyowl · 04-01-2013 2:53am

Galvasean wrote: »

The closest one I saw was the recent on where they reported that 'over 90% of Irish Catholics believe in God' as if it were some kind of achievement.

Interesting that they didn't comment on those Catholics who don't believe in God according to their survey!

kylith · 22-01-2013 10:50am

The Iona Institute is NOT a religious institute, says Patricia Casey, patron.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/01/21/is-the-iona-catholic/

So... if they're getting charitable status based on their 'promotion of religion', but their patron has said, live on air, that they're NOT a religious institute, doesn't that mean that their charitable status is based on a fraudulent claim, and should be revoked?

Who can I write to about this?

Banbh · 22-01-2013 11:07am

Well spotted. Why not write to the Revenue Commissioners. It will be interesting to see the reply.

oceanclub · 22-01-2013 12:18pm

Saw that the Iona Institute's Youtube account was terminated:

I'd be very surprised if this was for censorship reasons, since loads of US anti-gay marriage organisations have had Youtube channels for years. I wonder what happened.

P.

lazygal · 22-01-2013 12:24pm

Is there trouble in paradise?

Michael Nugent · 22-01-2013 12:33pm

oceanclub wrote: »

Saw that the Iona Institute's Youtube account was terminated. I'd be very surprised if this was for censorship reasons, since loads of US anti-gay marriage organisations have had Youtube channels for years. I wonder what happened.

The message on the channel's page says: "This account has been terminated due to repeated or severe violations of our Terms of Service."

Michael Nugent · 22-01-2013 12:37pm

Fleagle wrote: »

I run a (small) charity with Revenue tax exemption. We are not allowed to do any advocacy work or political lobbying or we will lose our charitable status.

You should check up on that, Fleagle.

The Charities Act 2009 excludes

“(b) a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.”

Michael Nugent · 22-01-2013 12:42pm

Fleagle,

Here are some relevant quotes from Minister Pat Carey in the debate on the Charities Act.

Charities Bill, Second Stage:

“Deputies Ring, Costello and Morgan suggested that the wording in respect of charities engaged in political activities might be changed to reflect the equivalent Scottish legislation. Much of the legal advice given to my officials during the drafting process was to the effect that UK legislative provisions do not easily transfer to Irish law however simple it may seem. The relevant wording in the Bill is designed to allow charities to engage in valid political work as a means of achieving their charitable purpose rather than as a primary purpose itself. Deputy Perry discussed at length the question of the fine line between political advocacy and lobbying. I do not accept that charities should be predominantly engaged in political activities and the wording achieves an appropriate balance.”

Charities Bill, Committee Stage:

“The relevant wording in the Bill was designed to allow a charity to engage in valid political work as a means of achieving its charitable aims, rather than as its primary activity. The advice I have received on the matter since Second Stage has confirmed that if an amendment of this nature is accepted, organisations that engage in political lobbying might be able to claim charitable status. I do not accept that charities should be predominantly engaged in political activities. The wording of this section achieves an appropriate balance. The regulatory authority will ultimately decide whether the primary objective of an organisation that is the key is the pursuit of a political cause. Any decision taken by the authority in this regard may be appealed to the charity appeals tribunal or to the High Court.”

FouxDaFaFa · 22-01-2013 3:19pm

I'm assuming their youtube account was closed because they used copyrighted content or something along those lines. Unless google considered them promoters of hate speech.

robindch · 22-01-2013 3:36pm

Mr Quinn's private telly channel is toast for sure.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0122/breaking31.html

Fun to see him complaining of being censored when he'd blocked comments on his youtube channel.

Sarky · 22-01-2013 3:38pm

Ahahahahahahaa. Oh, this is like getting a present. can we call today Christmas 2.0?

PopePalpatine · 22-01-2013 3:41pm

Sarky wrote: »

Ahahahahahahaa. Oh, this is like getting a present. can we call today Christmas 2.0?

Or Christmas+?

Sarky · 22-01-2013 3:41pm

Now I feel unsafe

lazygal · 22-01-2013 3:46pm

David should pay attention to this vengeful smiting of his channel. I fear God is angry with him, very, very angry.

Stark · 22-01-2013 3:50pm

I

you Google. Have my unbaptised babies. Though my opinion on the video was it only served to reveal to people just how vile the people arguing against gay marriage really are.

dahamsta · 22-01-2013 4:27pm

A flurry of ridiculous solicitors letters shall ensue no doubt.

Penn · 22-01-2013 4:28pm

I just hope it was removed for a legitimate reason. I'd hate for them to be able to get the videos reinstated and then be able to claim how there's an agenda to censor them.

Sarky · 22-01-2013 4:49pm

And it's back up. Oh well. It's either deny them the chance to show the world how evil they are, or let the world see how evil they are. Win-win for rational, sane people, really.

The Black Oil · 22-01-2013 4:49pm

Yeah, they'd really milk that - they've a pretty strong capacity for self-publicity anyway. According to the Journal, it's back.

SebBerkovich · 22-01-2013 4:50pm

I think it just broke google's charter. The video was hate speech.
But i'm sure they're bloody delighted that they can play the victim now.

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Comments