Charity versus Politics

Sheridan, Lutie

doi:10.1177/147377957300200103

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Canada, the permissive tradition, begun in the 1898 Farewell decision, was put into reverse gear in 1937 when the court in Knight fell in behind Lord Parker. In New Zealand too, in 1941, the Wilkinson case confirmed the trend (Clark, 1960;Sheridan, 1973;Rickett, 1982;Bates et al, undated).…”

Section: Why Were Constraints On Campaigning Only Adopted In the Twenmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Indeed, even in charity law countries, they have not always done so. The early Canadian decision of Farewell v Farewell and the early US case of Taylor v Hoag took almost exactly the opposite position, in nearly the same terms (Sheridan, 1973): it was this argument that was described as 'stultifying' the development of the law! It is hard to see what is wrong in the logic of charity law that makes the simple common sense of the Farewell and Taylor courts so objectionable today.…”

Section: The Concept Of a 'Charitable Purpose' Is One Of Service Provmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite judges' frequent use of it in all the British Commonwealth countries, it is, as Sheridan (1973) has said, 'a strain on credulity'.…”

Section: It Is Impossible For the Courts To Determine The Public Benementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The point of origin for the modem tradition of constraints in the case law in all these countries is the judgement of Lord Parker in Bowman v Secular Society in 1917 (see Sheridan, 1973;Chesterman, 1979;Gladstone, 1983;Williams, 1989). Notwithstanding Parker's bold assertion, for which he cited no authorities, that 'a trust for the attainment of political objects has always been held invalid', the previous case law does not concentrate on the concept of 'political' purposes at all.…”

Section: Why Were Constraints On Campaigning Only Adopted In the Twenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Constraining campaigning: the legal treatment of non-profit policy advocacy across 24 countries

Randon¹,

Perri

1994

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the findings of a 24 country study of the legal restrictions on the freedom of non-profit and charitable organisations to engage in public policy campaigning. The countries are divided into those which organise the legal status of non-profit bodies around the concept of a charity, and those that do not. The central finding is that all and only charity law countries have constraints on campaigning which are specific to non-profit bodies. The paper reviews a number of possible explanations for this, at the level of jurisprudential rationales which might show that it is necessary or at least rational for only the charity law countries to have developed such restrictions. To varying degrees, all are found wanting. It is suggested that no explanation based on an 'inner logic of the law" will serve to explain the phenomenon, and that future research might concentrate on comparative political history rather than on jurisprudence.

show abstract

Section: Why Were Constraints On Campaigning Only Adopted In the Twenmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: The Concept Of a 'Charitable Purpose' Is One Of Service Provmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite judges' frequent use of it in all the British Commonwealth countries, it is, as Sheridan (1973) has said, 'a strain on credulity'.…”

Section: It Is Impossible For the Courts To Determine The Public Benementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Why Were Constraints On Campaigning Only Adopted In the Twenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Constraining campaigning: the legal treatment of non-profit policy advocacy across 24 countries

Randon¹,

Perri

1994

Voluntas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This doctrine draws a fine line between political and charitable purposes, deeming the latter ineligible for charitable status if its objects are heavily based upon the former (Parachin, 2008). A critical deconstruction of a series of historical judgments on legal cases of this matter have been critiqued for falling short of legal justification (Brooks, 1983;Carter & Crawshaw, 1929;Gladstone, 1982;Michell, 1995;Parachin, 2008;Webb, 2000;Wright, 1937), particularly with regard to charities' advocacy work in furthering public benefit (Cotterrell, 1975;Dunn, 2008;Fridman, 1953;Ontario Law Reform Commission, 1996;Parachin, 2008;Sheridan, 1973).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%