Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Peregrinus · 04-12-2012 3:00am

recedite wrote: »

Somewhat bizarre for a Revenue spokesperson to say that, given that if you download the list there are actually numerous religious groups there.
I chose the alphabetically ordered list, so the Amish of Waterford were near the start,(presumably not the horse-drawn buggy variety) then there are various parishes and dioceses etc..
Iona are there under their Dan Brown-esque codename; that being the Polish diminutive of Karol, the name of a popular Pope...... (Lolek)

Revenue fobbing you off with a holding letter is one thing, but fobbing you off with misinformation is just incompetence.

I'm not sure that that's entirely fair, recedite. The fact that lots of approved charitable bodies appear to be religious in nature doesn't mean that religious bodies have a blanket tax exemption. It may simply reflect the fact that, for historical and other reasons, most formal charitable endeavours in this country are in fact organised by or through religious bodies, and are religiously inspired. Knowing what you know about Irish society, you'd expect a high proportion of religious entities in any list of charitable endeavours.

Peregrinus · 04-12-2012 3:42am

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could check the parliamentary debates when the Charities Act was under discussion to see what justification the government advanced for this treatment, and what observations the opposition made. And it would be interesting to know what the independent senators had to say about it.

For those interested, I’ve done a quick and dirty scan of the Oireachtas debates on the Charities Act 2009 to see what was said about the notion that “advancement of religion” should be charitable in law.

For what it’s worth, nobody seems to have challenged the assertion head-on, and suggested that religion should simply be dropped from the list of charitable purposes.

But, from early on, there was a regularly-expressed concern that enterprises which were not, in reality, religious would assume a religious character in order to qualify for tax and other advantages as charities - or alternatively, that they would assume a religious character and not register as charities, while hoping that the public would assume they were charitable, and would support them accordingly.

Michael D. Higgins, then but a humble TD, described organizations for the advancement of religion as “a curious area”. He suggested that the legislation might need to distinguish between “genuine religions, ones established for tax purposes, and, most dangerous of all, cults”. And, less we miss the point, he added that “the Church of Scientology and others come to mind”. Higgins’s main concern, though, in the debates on the Bill was not the treatment of religion; he had a wider concern about establishing a human-rights based concept of charity. If anything, he wanted a broad concept of “charity” focused not just on poverty and economic issues but on broader issues of justice, and on social and cultural rights. I suspect, with that agenda, he would have been slow to start demanding wide exclusions from the notion of “charity”.

Jack Wall TD, of the Labour Party, put down an amendment to provide that “religion” was not to include “any organization or cult which . . . is primarily economic in nature or employs oppressive psychological manipulation of its adherents”. Amendments along these lines, though with slightly different wording, were discussed a couple of times as the Bill wound its way through the Dail and later the Seanad. Wall’s comments in support of the amendment suggested that he saw it as being directed at new movements that “are beginning to gain a foothold in Ireland”, rather than any of the long-established churches. He withdrew the amendment when the government promised further consideration of the question of whether religion should be automatically presumed to be “for the public benefit” (which it has to be, to have charitable status). Subsequently, an amendment to soften the presumption that the advancement of religion is always for the public benefit was passed.

In the Seanad, an amendment was moved by Dominic Hannigan (Labour) to provide that “humanism or any other philosophical life-stance” would get the same treatment as religion. David Norris supported the idea as regards humanism, but felt that the concept of “philosophical life-stance” was not well defined, and would “cover some groups I do not especially want to be covered”. Ivana Bacik also supported the amendment in so far as it would include humanism as charitable under the “advancement of religion” heading. The Labour party withdrew the amendment, though, because of the negative reaction to the vagueness of its language on “philosophical life-stances”. (Language about humanism never was inserted in the Bill, but as noted earlier in the thread the Humanist Association of Ireland does have recognition as a charity, presumably either because the authorities accept that humanism is a “religion” or because they accept that it is another “purpose that is of benefit to the community”.)

It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.)

Galvasean · 04-12-2012 1:27pm

Excellent sluething there Per.

"It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.) "

Although I can't think of any mainstream religion which does not fall foul of at least one of these criteria.

recedite · 04-12-2012 8:50pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

He suggested that the legislation might need to distinguish between “genuine religions, ones established for tax purposes, and, most dangerous of all, cults”.

I've heard various definitions of a "cult" and how it differs from a mainstream "religion", but the best one is that in a cult, the founder is still alive and knows its a all a scam. Whereas in a religion, he's dead.

I'm a bit disappointed that in those debates, the assumption that furthering religion was a charitable enterprise went largely unchallenged, the only worry being that foreign religions might be able to benefit from the same legislation.
And this all slipped through in 2009, not 1809.

Peregrinus wrote: »

as noted earlier in the thread the Humanist Association of Ireland does have recognition as a charity, presumably either because the authorities accept that humanism is a “religion” or because they accept that it is another “purpose that is of benefit to the community”.

A third possibility is that they were already on the Revenue list as exempt from tax; those already on the Revenue exempt list were deemed to qualify for the new registered charity list.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2012 2:47am

Galvasean wrote: »

"It was in the Seanad that the government brought forward its own amendment to organizations or cults whose principal object is making a profit, or who employ oppressive psychological manipulation of their own followers, or for the purposes of gaining new followers, and this amendment was passed. (It now appears as s. 3(1) of the Act.) "

Although I can't think of any mainstream religion which does not fall foul of at least one of these criteria.

Perhaps the Attorney-General’s threshold for “aggressive psychological manipulation” is a bit higher than yours! :-)

The “making a profit” rule is a bit of window-dressing, I think. It was always the case that any body, no matter how charitable its objects, which paid or could theoretically pay any kind of dividend/return on investment/interest/whatever you want to call it to members/investors/participants/sponsors/promoters/whatever you want to call them would be refused registration as an authorized charity by the Revenue Commissioners.

recedite wrote: »

A third possibility is that they [Humanist Association of Ireland] were already on the Revenue list as exempt from tax; those already on the Revenue exempt list were deemed to qualify for the new registered charity list.

Yes, but the definition of “charitable” in the 2009 Act was a statutory codification of the common law rules that had applied since forever. So even before 2009, to get on the Revenue approved list HAI would have to have been accepted has having as its object the “advancement of religion“ or “other purposes beneficial to the community”.

I would have thought that they’d come in under the “other purposes beneficial” heading myself, but Ivana Bacik’s take on this in the Seanad debate was interesting. She referred to HAI doing things for non-believers which churches generally do for believers, and which she obviously thought were Good Things - she mentioned weddings and funerals, and on that basis she felt they should be bracketed with religion (as did the Labour Party).

And I think this may point to a clue as to why there’s a generally willingness, not just in Ireland but in a lot of other countries, to continue accepting the advancement of religion as charitable. We think of religion as being defined by belief - if you believe in a supreme being or a supernatural order or whatever, you’re religious; if you don’t, you’re not. But whether an organization is charitable or not is determined ultimately by what it does, not what it believes. And, whatever your views about their core beliefs, it’s undeniably the case that religious bodies have been instrumental in a huge amount of undeniably charitable activity - schools, hospitals, elder care, relief of poverty, social care, even - as Bacik pointed out - celebrating weddings and funerals and such. And, more than that, they’ve undeniably been hugely instrumental in promoting the view that it’s important to do these things; they not only do charitable things themselves, but they strongly encourage both individuals and the community at large to take the moral obligation of charity seriously, and to do charitable things. So far as I can see, nobody else does this with quite the sustained enthusiasm that churches do.

In short, the presumption that religious bodies are charitable, whatever its limitations in theory, largely works in practice, even in societies considerably more secular than our own.

recedite · 05-12-2012 3:07pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

it’s undeniably the case that religious bodies have been instrumental in a huge amount of undeniably charitable activity - schools, hospitals, elder care, relief of poverty, social care..............they not only do charitable things themselves, but they strongly encourage both individuals and the community at large to take the moral obligation of charity seriously, and to do charitable things.....

All true, in which case they should have no difficulty qualifying under the “purposes beneficial to the community” clause.
I see no reason for having a separate standalone clause, the “advancement of religion“ which qualifies a cult/religion as a charity, even if they display no purpose beneficial to the community. Why should "being a religion" automatically qualify them to be a charity?

I suspect its because a registered charity must plough all its income into charity work, not just some of it. Churches might have to split off their actual charity work into special tax exempt entities, leaving their other income exposed.

Peregrinus · 06-12-2012 3:15am

recedite wrote: »

All true, in which case they should have no difficulty qualifying under the “purposes beneficial to the community” clause.
I see no reason for having a separate standalone clause, the “advancement of religion“ which qualifies a cult/religion as a charity, even if they display no purpose beneficial to the community. Why should "being a religion" automatically qualify them to be a charity?

I suspect its because a registered charity must plough all its income into charity work, not just some of it. Churches might have to split off their actual charity work into special tax exempt entities, leaving their other income exposed.

No. It’s already the case that there are an awful lot of religious entities which are not registered charities because they fail that test. Veritas Publications Ltd, for instance, is a publisher, distributor and seller of religious books and periodicals. It’s wholly owned by the Irish bishops, and its stated purpose is to serve the needs of the Irish church. It undoubtedly passes the “advancement of religion” test. Nevertheless it’s not an authorized charity because it pays (or can pay) dividends to its shareholders, and so it is liable to Corporation Tax, etc, in the usual way. Dominican Publications is a similar entity owned by the Dominican Order; it’s not an authorized charity. And these examples could be multiplied. So religions already have to distinguish between their charitable and non-charitable entities.

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.

What it does do, as far as I can see, is get you a (rebuttable) presumption that your purpose is “of public benefit”. That probably makes very little difference to the likes of the Vincent de Paul, who would have absolutely no difficulty in satisfying that test, but it’s of more benefit to organizations like Trócaire, whose work is all done abroad. (“The public”, in charities law, generally means the public in Ireland). Now, nonreligious overseas aid charities do get authorized (Goal is on the list,for example) but as I understand it to get authorization they have to make the case that their objects are beneficial to the Irish public; Trócaire doesn’t have to make that case. (Presumably, they could make it if they had to.)

Secondly, the presumption of public benefit might be of use to a body whose purpose is very narrowly focused, and doesn’t include anything indisputably charitable, like the relief of poverty or the advancement of education. For example, is an enclosed convent a body with an object which is “of public benefit”? Is praying for the world “of public benefit”? Or what about a body which maintains a church or parish - is holding public worship “of public benefit”? The answer to these questions really depends on philosophical stances upon whose validity or truth the Revenue Commissioners are - ahem - ill-qualified to adjudicate. As the law stands, the Revenue Commissioners avoid that particular sh*tstorm, for which I suspect they are privately thankful.

Sarky · 06-12-2012 11:30am

I occasionally have a look at the Iona wossname's website. I have yet to find a single article that doesn't sound bitter, crazy and/or hateful towards some group or other.

It's also a pretty shabby website. :eek:

Galvasean · 06-12-2012 5:12pm

Sarky wrote: »

I occasionally have a look at the Iona wossname's website. I have yet to find a single article that doesn't sound bitter, crazy and/or hateful towards some group or other.

It's also a pretty shabby website. :eek:

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.

Sarky · 06-12-2012 8:23pm

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.

The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.

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.

Stark · 22-01-2013 5:02pm

"And because we're back, here's our latest video. Only a white person's skin can make enough Vitamin D from the Irish sun without the need for supplements. So based on that, doesn't it make sense to only allow white people to live in Ireland? Of course it does! It's not discrimination to give superior treatment to superior races".

kylith · 22-01-2013 5:10pm

Tell me that that's not their latest quote.

It's especially annoying because it's true (barring that 'superior race'/whites only nonsense).

Doctor DooM · 22-01-2013 5:28pm

It was probably caused by a fake DMCA take down notice from someone upset by the content.

This kind of crap happens often on youtube from both sides of the fence.

Rev Hellfire · 22-01-2013 5:31pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

It was probably caused by a fake DMCA take down notice from someone upset by the content.

This kind of crap happens often on youtube from both sides of the fence.

Funny thing is it just serves to get more people to view the channel in the long run. I'd never bothered with it until I heard it was blocked for example.

Obliq · 22-01-2013 5:50pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Funny thing is it just serves to get more people to view the channel in the long run. I'd never bothered with it until I heard it was blocked for example.

Yes, true. The vimeo statistics showed 200 views today and there was only about 280 in total for the week.

oceanclub · 22-01-2013 6:28pm

Awesome. The reason that Iona Institute's channel was down?

At some point, they were sent an identity verification email from Google. And never replied.

A spokeswoman for Google told TheJournal.ie that it had “nothing to do with censorship” as had been earlier speculated on by the director of the conservative think tank, David Quinn.

The spokeswoman said the account’s temporary removal was a “verification issue”. Quinn said on Twitter this evening: “Seemingly we hadn’t responded to an email from them verifying our account.”

Help help, we're being oppressed.

P.

robindch · 22-01-2013 6:44pm

^^^ Persecution! Liberal media bias! Anti-catholic!

PopePalpatine · 22-01-2013 6:50pm

Now, now, it's pronounced "meeja". :pac:

The Black Oil · 22-01-2013 11:42pm

I think we've all probably let an online verification thing slip by one time or another, wouldn't really fault him there, but he jumped on the censorship assumption pretty quickly - a bit desperate. Happy for their videos to stay up so we can see the subsequent parodies.

pauldla · 23-01-2013 2:57am

The Black Oil wrote: »

I think we've all probably let an online verification thing slip by one time or another, wouldn't really fault him there, but he jumped on the censorship assumption pretty quickly - a bit desperate. Happy for their videos to stay up so we can see the subsequent parodies.

Obviously, there are times when you do wait for the facts, and times when you don't. :pac:

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Comments