[EBeditor]

Thought provoking article by Justine Davies:
http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/baby-...0502-1xyjq.html

what qualities do you think should be mandatory for organisations, to qualify as a charity (with all the wonderful tax benefits and social esteem benefits that go along with that) or to describe themselves along those lines? Is an anti-vaccination lobby group a good contender for that description? What about the Australian Breastfeeding Association? Or the (hypothetical) Australian bottle-feeding association? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to both the ability to fundraise, and the ability to use the word charity?

[Guest_holy_j_*]

Absolutely not.

[4kidlets]

really disappointing court decision.


However, one does not have to be a charity to run fund raisers - many country sports clubs, which no-one would call charities, run raffles and competitions - perhaps as community clubs they get same tax benifits, I dont know.

[RatbagBob]

I think that at the very least an organisation wanting to be a charity should have some accountability, and some relationship with the truth. In the instance of the AVN, they are spreading lies that have been comprehensively, and frequently shown to be rubbish and scientifically disproved.

I also think that a charity, through it's actions, should not be able to actually harm people, which by their misinformation, the AVN so obviously is.

[MakeLoveNotBacon]

From the information in your article Amber, it's not operating as a charity - it has charitable fundraising authority which means it can conduct fundraising appeals along the lines of lotteries, donations, competitions and sponsorships, as well as actively undertake membership drives.

But don't let that get in the way of a good AVN bashing thread.

[Lisy-lis]

I was going to say this was a silly question designed to provide amusement on a cold wet afternoon.

Now I'm not so sure.


AVN should be outlawed on public health grounds.

[*Spikey*]

I certainly think its a not-for-profit organisation, and should be treated as such. It is NOT a charity as charity involves giving something to those in need - an organisation may do charitable works, although not be primarily a charity (eg, Salvos). The AVN does not appear to undertake any form of charitable works, unless you count giving children deadly childhood diseases as a charitable work that benefits a few, or many, in our society.

Lots of NFP organisations do fundraising, which is fine. They should be taxed on their income though.

[EBeditor]

From the information in your article Amber, it's not operating as a charity - it has charitable fundraising authority which means it can conduct fundraising appeals along the lines of lotteries, donations, competitions and sponsorships, as well as actively undertake membership drives.

But don't let that get in the way of a good AVN bashing thread.

I have amended the title, but the point is made in the article that they consider themselves a charity and promote themselves as such.

That fundraising can then be used to promote their message via advertising.

I wouldn't say the article was 'bashing' them and nor did my first post - I just thought this was an interesting discussion, to have.

[Jane Jetson]

Should they be able to raise funds in order to expose children to deadly diseases?

Um... no.

[purplekitty]

The word charity and AVN should not be spoken in the same sentence irrespective of the legal implications of "charity" under Australian law.

But don't let that get in the way of a good AVN bashing thread.

That implies that the AVN is being unfairly targeted.
Someone should be able to list the positive benefits they bring to society then.