Duplicitous Donation-seekers

Great piece from Eilis O'Hanlon on what many crypto-leftist charities actually do with the money they raise:

Oxfam also funds an extensive UK Poverty Programme, in which it proclaims, "We are working to change the way poverty is understood and challenged throughout the country", declaring the phenomenon to be "the same for most poor people, whether they live on a housing estate in Wales or a village in Ghana".

Again, it's an idiotic contention, but even if it wasn't, this is absolutely not what people think their donations are being spent on.

Don't even ask either about the reports into "Combatting Social Exclusion and Gender Stereotyping in Gellideg in the South Wales Valleys" and the gender profile of South Yorkshire's labour market, on both of which Oxfam recently spent precious donations.

Whether these projects are worth pursuing is one debate. Personally, the idea of wasting money on what reads like little more than glorified Guardian articles does not fill my heart with joy

But if charities genuinely believe they are important, the least they should do is be honest when seeking funding for them, not mesmerise us with images of Third World poverty while actually planning to spend the money on second-rate sociology in Cardiff.

Taking money donated in good faith by people across the political spectrum and using it to promote narrow Leftist political agendas - the attacks by Irish charities on Israel's peace wall is another prime example - is treating people's generosity with contempt.

Trocaire are by far the worst offenders here in Ireland. Anyone tempted to donate anything to this organisation, established by the Catholic Church, which, under Justin Kilcullen's stewardship, has degenerated into just another leftist advocacy group would be strongly advised to give to the likes of GOAL instead.

Comments

[Andrew]

Do any readers know much about the administration of GOAL? I have been very concerned by recent radio ads for GOAL signed off by one 'Lisa O'Shea'. Presumably this is a relative (daughter?) of John O'Shea. So what is GOAL - a nice little family business to be handed down the generations? I don't believe there is any room for such nepotism in professional charity organisations.

[Andrew]

Do any readers know much about the administration of GOAL? I have been very concerned by recent radio ads for GOAL signed off by one 'Lisa O'Shea'. Presumably this is a relative (daughter?) of John O'Shea. So what is GOAL - a nice little family business to be handed down the generations? I don't believe there is any room for such nepotism in professional charity organisations.

[enda johnson]

wasn't trócaire also used as a slush fund for wayward priests to keep their children in the style to which they'd become accustomed?
i think the red cross is probably a safe bet? yesno?

[John]

As a Catholic, I should love Trocaire, but I can't stand it. Kilcullen is the worst. I've said as much before, but Bishop Kirby is only slightly better. These two men have convinced me to find some other outlet for my impulse for charity.

[Peter Nolan]

"So what is GOAL - a nice little family business to be handed down the generations? I don't believe there is any room for such nepotism in professional charity organisations."

The rewards of running a charity are probably minimal anyway. If somebody is willing to follow a parent into the organisation, then that might well underpin a strong committment to its objectives, reinforcing altruism and ambition with family feeling.

[Bran]

Surely no one is suggesting that there is such a thing as a pious fraud"?
http//www.blog-irish.com/pious.htm

[Michael Turley]

Free market adherents seem to be less attracted to charity work than bleeding heart lefties. That would perhaps explain a perceived leftist leaning amongst many charitiable organisations. Bad sociology is only one of many tragedies which are caused by the unequal distribution of left leaning employees in the charity sector.

It seems to me that complaining that charities might have a leftist bias is about as observant and penetrating as noticing that large corporations tend to be more supportive of conservative government administrations.

[Frank McGahon]

I don't accept your premise. In fact, private charities have a better "fit" to a free-market viewpoint than leftist state-interventionism. Of course when charities are funded mainly from government subsidy as opposed to private donations it is a different story.

In any case, the complaint is not that charities have a left wing bias per se but that particular charities such as Trocaire are obtaining money under false pretenses. Few of those who offer donations, particularly at mass where you might expect the more conservative to congregate, appreciate the extent to which the supposed "Christian charity" is just a hard left pressure group little different to that found on the campuses. This problem is compounded by the fact that the "anti-poverty" solutions promoted by such groups, based on the tried, tested and failed marxist model, are more likely to perpetuate (or even increase) poverty than eradicate it.

[Michael Turley]

Whether or not, philosophically speaking, private charities have a better fit to a free-market viewpoint is immaterial. The model may fit but I am not sure charity volunteers and employees are not satisfying a desire to demonstrate the effectiveness of private enterprise over government intervention.

I agree that charity organisations activities should be completely transparent.

Forgive my ignorance but are Trocaire, Oxfam, et al really promoting failed marxist anti-poverty solutions?

[Frank McGahon]

Whether or not, philosophically speaking, private charities have a better fit to a free-market viewpoint is immaterial.

Well you brought it up. Look: lefties might like to pride themselves on the depth of compassion unique to that side of the political axis but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to collude in that fiction. Just because someone is in favour of free markets doesn't mean that they conform to the popular caricature. Privately funded charities are a powerful counter-argument to the notion that certain problems may only be dealt with effectively by the government.

The problems with the likes of Trocaire and Oxfam, in case Justin Kilcullen's ubiquitous presence on Irish media hadn't already evinced this, is that their analysis is based on a number of (marxist) misconceptions. One of which is the ludicrous claim as above that one might consider poverty in a Ghanaian village analogous to that in a Welsh housing estate. The tacit assumption here is that one ought aim for some (chimerical) perfect equality, the alleviation of specific problems is secondary to this overarching goal. That is the only conclusion one can draw from a position which ignores and discounts the manifest differences between either cases of poverty. Not the least of the problems with this notion is that that equality is unachievable. Another erroneous misconception is that poverty is "caused" by "exploitation". You see this in the utterly misguided crusades against sweatshops. The people "rescued" from "exploitation" when the sweatshop closes down are not enriched but beggared by this unwanted "liberation". The marxist-style analysis tacks on all sorts of auxiliary goals - such as environmental issues, "organic" farming, "fair" trade, wildlife conservation, anti-GM crops - many of which run counter to the alleviation of poverty.

[Tony Allwright]

Couldn't agree more with you. Give generously to GOAL. But steer well clear of Trócaire, Concern and Afri unless you want your donations spent on their left-wing, dictator-loving politics.

I've disparaged all three in my own blog, eg

+ www.tallrite.com/weblog/archives/august03.htm#UnworthyCharities

+ www.tallrite.com/weblog/archives/october03.htm#AfriAnotherLeftWingPoliticalCharity

[Hey, I note Bran of Blog-Irish has made a comment on this thread. Thought he had left our cybercommunity for good!]