Mediaboss Marketing

Charities that support politically or culturally contentious causes should expect their charitable status to come under regulatory scrutiny even if they are acting within the law, according to the outgoing chair of the Charity Commission.

The peer Tina Stowell, who is stepping down after three years in the post, warned charities against being captured by unnamed people who wish to push a partial view of the world and use charity platforms to wage war on political enemies.

The commission, whose remit covers England and Wales, has recently pursued high-profile investigations against charities after Tory MPs complained they had strayed into ideological dogma or a woke agenda on issues such as race equality.

Charities can challenge things, charities can shake things up, they can even change the world, but they cant and they shouldnt go out of their way to divide people, Lady Stowell said in a speech on Thursday hosted by the Social Market Foundation.

Investigations were launched into the National Trust over its publication of a report on some of its properties past links to slavery, and against the childrens charity Barnardos which was accused of political activism for publishing a blogpost on racial inequality and white privilege. Both investigations are continuing.

Charity figures responded furiously to the speech, accusing Stowell of demonstrating the very attitudes she was warning charities against. One charity leader told the Guardian: Lady Stowell warns charities against being divisive and yet she is drawing them into a culture war by saying they cant legitimately make a stand on issues.

Stowell, who some believe lost the trust of the charity sector after using rightwing newspapers to warn charities against getting involved in politics or culture wars, said charities had to be more respectful of public expectations of what they were for.

If charity is to remain at the forefront of our national life, it cannot afford to be captured by those who want to advance or defend their own view of the world to the exclusion of all others, she said. Charities can adapt to the latest social and cultural trends but there is a real risk of generating unnecessary controversy and division by picking sides in a battle some have no wish to fight.

Many seek out charities as an antidote to politics and division, not as another front on which to wage a war against political enemies, and they have the right to be respected.

Charity Commission guidance states that campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake within limits that require charities not to have a political purpose and to be independent of political parties.

Asked after her speech whether charities with a political agenda should lose their charitable status, Stowell suggested that party politics was too narrow a definition of the limits of charity political activity. Not everything which is contentious is defined as a particular partys position on something, she said.

So in that respect what charities have to be mindful of is there are risks to adopting or getting involved in particular sorts of movement or causes that are outside of their objects and then they start to make people question whether or not they really are entitled to retain that status of charity.

Stowell was appointed as the Charity Commissions chair in 2018 despite a unanimous parliamentary select committee recommendation that her nomination should be rejected on the grounds that she lacked experience of both charity and regulatory roles.

Stowell, a Conservative politician and former civil servant, became a peer in 2011. She was leader of the House of Lords before resigning the Tory whip upon her Charity Commission appointment. The commission was unable to say whether she would have the whip restored after her term ends.

Responding to Stowells speech, Sue Tibballs, of the campaigning charity the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, said: Throughout her tenure Tina Stowell has been a leading voice amongst those who accuse charities of stoking culture wars by not reflecting public opinion. Charities by law, however, are required to act in the public interest, not to reflect public opinion.

Andrew Purkis, a former Charity Commission board member, said it was important that Stowells successor as commission chair focused on what the law said charities were allowed to do, not what he or she thought they ought to do. The guidance is clear: charities are allowed to be political with a small p if we are in pursuit of our charitable objects, he said.

This article was amended on 5 February 2021. An earlier version described Tina Stowell as a Tory peer. Text has been added to clarify that Lady Stowell was the Conservative leader in the Lords, but resigned the party whip on her appointment to the Charity Commission. Text was also added to clarify the commissions remit covers England and Wales only.

Read the rest here:
Commission chief tells charities not to be 'captured' for politics - The Guardian

By David M. Greenwald

It looks increasingly like a recall effort will get the matter of Gavin Newsom on the ballot. But, while his standing has fallen from 64 percent approval in September to 46 percent now (against 48 percent disapproval), it does not appear right now that there are the votes to remove him from office.

An IGS (Institute of Governmental Studies from UC Berkeley) poll released last week shows only 36 percent of votes support removing him from office, but there is a large number of undecided at, 19 percent.

These results should provide a strong warning to the Governor, IGS co-director Eric Schickler said in a release accompanying the poll. If the recall election does go forward, the states response to the pandemic needs to be seen as more successful for the Governor than it is now for him to be confident of the election outcome.

IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo said that the trendline is not great, but he is in a far stronger position than Gray Davis was in 2003 when he was removed from office.

I would say that a lot depends on the events of the next three or four months. Whats unusual about the measure on his recall is the relatively large proportions of voters still undecided, DiCamillo said. I think that the job rating hit is serious, but if things start to improve on the pandemic front I think the recall will be less of a problem for him.

The partisan split is interesting. A PPIC Poll (Public Policy Institute of California poll) released on February 2 showed 71 percent of Democrats versus 46 percent of independents and 16 percent of Republicans support his job approval. But Republican dislike is not enough in a state where they only represent 24 percent of all votes and where Trump received just over one third of the vote.

Newsom can survive by shoring up his base71 percent Democratic voter approval is worrisome for the governor.

One thing to watch potentially is the appointment for attorney general. He is under pressure from various groups to name a reformerthe question is which one, as the reform community seems divided.

However, one thing is clearthere has been speculation that he could name either Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg or Los Angeles area Congressional Leader Adam Schiff.

For Steinberg, once the States Senate leader, there was grumbling even before the city botched shelter for homeless people in the arealeading to a potential push for a recall of the mayor by homeless advocates.

Meanwhile, Adam Schiff would serve as a lightning rod both on the left and the right. The right sees his outspoken opposition to former President Trump as a huge negative, while the left is unimpressed with his record on criminal justice reform matters.

The justified anger from the left has not been getting enough attention, Kate Chatfield tweeted on Saturday. The right is upset with Newsom as they fight their increasingly bizarre culture wars, but the anger on the left is real and deep.

Chatfield, a Senior Legal Analyst with the Appeal who helped draft SB 1437 legislation, believes that whomever Newsom appoints as AG will speak volumes.

She said, If he appoints Adam Schiff or some carceral DA, or someone who has done nothing against mass incarceration or who has been supported by right wing law enforcement, he will (again) be telling so many communities that they do not matter to him.

A letter the Vanguard published last week from a coalition of reformers noted, When Adam Schiff was a member of the California legislature, he was not only supportive of, but deeply invested in, creating our current system of incarceration. This system of incarceration has continued to devastate communities of color and continues to take resources away from our schools, cities, and from all Californians in need.

They continue: We know that many Democratic politicians in the 1990s and 2000s espoused a tough on crime platform. However, even President Biden, one such politician, campaigned on ending the federal death sentence and acknowledged that his prior tough on crime policies were a mistake.

They point out that, in contrast to Biden who has moved toward justice reform and opposition to the death penalty, Schiff has continued to support legislation that would expand the size and scope of our system of incarceration, including voting recently to expand the federal death penalty, legislation that was part of a right wing narrative against Black Lives Matter and calls across the United States for police accountability.

For example, Schiff was one of just 48 Democrats to vote for The Thin Blue Line Act of 2017, a bill that would expand the federal death penalty when a law enforcement officer is killed, despite there already being laws that allowed for this.

This bill was was strongly opposed by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

They argue, This bill fed into a right-wing narrative against the Black Lives Matter movement and the movement for police accountability, suggesting that these racial justice groups were putting law enforcement lives in danger. The dog-whistle was heard by many.

One problem that reformers facethey seem divided on whom to support.

For instance, two weeks ago the Vanguard published a letter with over 160 signatures from the Asian American community pushing for California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu.

On and off the bench, Justice Liu has distinguished himself as a leading voice for racial justice and inclusion in the legal profession and beyond, said Mia Yamamoto, LGBTQ+ rights advocate and co-founder of the Multi-Cultural Bar Alliance of Southern California. Asian Americans too often remain an invisible minority. Justice Lius pathbreaking 2017 study on Asian Americans in the legal profession enabled our communitys accomplishments to be celebrated and our challenges to be addressed.

Meanwhile, public defenders are pushing for Assemblymember Ash Kalraa former public defender.

Signed by, among others, Yolo County Public Defender Tracie Olson and San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju, they write: As public defenders who represent people and serve families most impacted by our criminal legal system, we call upon Governor Gavin Newsom to appoint Assemblyman Ash Kalra as Californias next Attorney General.

Others are supporting Rob Bonta,

As a career-long advocate for justice and equality, Rob Bonta has led the fight in the Legislature to reform the criminal justice system and treat people with dignity, Assemblymember Evan Low said in a statement. Ive known Rob for years, and he would lead the California Department of Justice with distinction.

The Legislative Black Caucus is supporting Contra Costa DA Diana Becton.

Becton, a strong progressive prosecutor, was endorsed in a unanimous vote by the legislative group, who called her a well-respected jurist and litigator with an exceptional statewide and national reputation among her colleagues, Californias law enforcement, and social justice communities.

She is an experienced executive leader of large organizations, a strong supporter of progressive policies aligned with CLBC priorities, and has a track record of working with Californias diverse communities, according to the CLBC.

For Newsom to survive, the pandemic in California will have to improveas people are vaccinated, numbers go down, and schools and businesses open, his standing will improve. But maintaining his base in a state where Biden was a +29 over Trump is critical and the AG appointment could be a signal to progressives as to whether Newsom is worth saving.

David M. Greenwald reporting

To sign up for our new newsletter Everyday Injustice https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9

Support our work to become a sustaining at $5 $10- $25 per month hit the link:

See the original post:
Monday Morning Thoughts: AG Appointment Could Be Pivotal for Newsom - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Introduction by Croakey: Liberal backbencher and prolific Facebook poster Craig Kelly continues to publish misinformation about public health issues, including COVID-19 and climate change, as well as to attack the ABC and others who question his claims.

On 8 February he posted about a BBC report on climate change that quoted Mark Carney, the United Nations envoy for climate action and finance and formerly Bank of England governor and the head of the Bank of Canada.

Kelly wrote:

Mr Carney is speaking complete unmitigated BS.

Its just another scare campaign designed to hand more power to the global elites and the big wbankers [sic].

Kellys page has almost 81,000 followers. While some commentators, including Michelle Grattan, have questioned whether his views on COVID-19 have much influence with the public, Dr Tim Senior, a general practitioner working in Aboriginal health in NSW, says Kellys actions are making the work of clinicians more difficult.

Should I have the vaccine?

Many of my patients have been asking this over the last few weeks. Lots of people want to have this discussion. One or two people have said they definitely don t want it, mainly concerned about safety. Most people are up for a discussion, and expect me to know about the vaccine options.

I can have these discussions because its a basic part of the job of being a GP. Throughout the pandemic, weve had to keep up to date, for the public health prevention of social distancing, hand sanitisation, wearing masks.

Weve had to keep abreast of public health orders, being careful in discussion of the most appropriate orders not to undermine public confidence.

Weve prepared for conversations with our patients who have caught COVID fortunately, not too often in Australia about the best available treatment, and symptoms that suggest hospital care is needed. Our hospital colleagues have had these conversations with patients and their families.

We do this all the time, across many illnesses. Sitting with patients and their families, who feel unwell and vulnerable, we dont have the opportunity of just making things up. We need the evidence about the safety and effectiveness of the treatments we offer to have discussions about these, to allow patients to make decisions for themselves.

In a sense, Prime Minister Scott Morrison is right when he says about Craig Kellys misinformation page on Facebook, Craig Kelly is not my doctor, and hes not yours to Laura Tingle. Craig Kelly will never have to have these conversations or make these decisions.

But this is disingenuous. I am not Scott Morrisons doctor either, and neither are many thousands of other doctors across Australia, but the information they give out is still trustworthy. This comment is the medical equivalent of I dont hold a hose, mate, that only front-line individual interactions matter.

Theres a denial that policy matters, or even that there might be room for policy. (To be fair, this was Scott Morrisons election platform, which can be summarised as I drink beer and wear hats, not like those boring policy wonks on the other side.) Its not that they dont do policy, its that this explicit lack of admitting to policy allows actual policies of climate inaction, decreasing social security and engaging in culture wars.

Which brings us back to Craig Kelly. Despite the reported dressing down, hes still posting misinformation to Facebook, which the Prime Minister says is fine because its not about vaccination.

Craig Kelly doesnt have to sit down with anyone worried about COVID. He will never have to provide advice, or discuss the pros and cons to someone about the risks of heart disease or their immunosuppression. He will never have to make a decision as to whether the evidence is strong enough to get a benefit from an intervention, knowing there will be risks.

None of these should be partisan right/left issues, or part of the culture wars. (I cant really believe I even have to write a sentence like that!)

The discussions I have with my patients rely on trust. We have to trust that the ethical processes of research mean that studies are done fairly and written up accurately, and peer reviewed appropriately (not always the case!). We rely on the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisations to assess the evidence and make appropriate recommendations.

And, most visibly, we rely on politicians and the political system to make these decisions fairly for the common good. It is this that Craig Kelly undermines by spending his time posting misinformation. It is this that Scott Morrison undermines when he allows Kelly to continue posting it.

Courage in this case is not claiming Kellys right of free speech to say nonsensical things any fool with a keyboard can do that. Courage would be to say its more important to have consistent public messaging about the evidence than it is to court the votes of those tempted by conspiracy theories.

Courage would be admitting to posting nonsense. And real courage would be the feeling of vulnerability that many patients and families feel in the face of COVID, and being able to sit and hear their fears, and answer their questions honestly.

I think its too much to hope for, though. Unlike health professionals, theres no enforceable code of conduct for backbenchers, and the ministerial code of conduct never seems to be enforced. Theres no ethical expectation to Do no harm.

Well continue to do our work while Craig Kelly and the PM make it harder for all of us.

Dr Tim Senior is a GP working in NSW and a contributing editor at Croakey. Follow on Twitter: @timsenior

On ABC, Casey Briggs investigates Craig Kellys Facebook impact. On Twitter, follow @CaseyBriggs and his bot @auspol_posts

View post:
On Craig Kelly, misinformation and a view from the clinical frontlines - Croakey

Serious allegations of abuse seem to have ended the career of Satanic rocker Marilyn Manson conclusive proof that the church of woke and its feminist denomination are way more influential than the so-called moral majority.

Marilyn Manson, who rose to stardom as a self-proclaimed shock rock anti-Christ in the 1990s, has long had a target on his back.

Ever since the minimally talented Manson hit it big with his cover of the Eurythmics Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) off his EP Smells Like Children in 1995, fundamentalist Christians have tried to cancel him for his devoutly anti-Christian attitudes and occult antics.

In a brilliant piece of cultural jiu-jitsu, Manson masterfully used his position as a public foil to puritanical Christians to promote himself to great wealth and fame with his smash hit follow-up albums Antichrist Superstar (1996) and Mechanical Animals (1998).

It seemed back then that the more outrageously anti-Christian Manson got, the more MTV and Rolling Stone and the rest of the pop culture establishment embraced him, and it drove conservative Christians absolutely crazy.

For his rather derivative satanic rock star pose, Manson inflamed a Christian hysteria that led to him being blamed for everything from teen suicide to the Columbine Massacre. But none of those charges ever actually harmed Mansons career, only enhanced it.

Mansons success in the 90s and conservative Christians impotence in the face of it was a clear indicator of the religions waning social power and a forewarning of its precipitous demise and near disappearance from American culture.

But where conservative Christians miserably failed to bring down Manson in the 90s, the new dominant puritanical moral force in our culture, wokeness, with its powerful feminist denomination #MeToo, has succeeded spectacularly.

This week, numerous women, including Mansons former fiance, actress Evan Rachel Wood, have come forward with allegations of sexual assault, psychological abuse and/or various forms of coercion, violence and intimidation.

Wood, who was 18 when she met the then 36 year-old Manson, said of the relationship, He started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years. I was brainwashed and manipulated into submission.

Another former fiance of Mansons, actress Rose McGowan, released a statement in support of Wood and the other accusers. I stand with Evan Rachel Wood and the other brave women who have come forwardLet the truth be revealed. Let the healing begin.

In response to the cavalcade of allegations, Loma Vista Recordings, which distributes Mansons albums, said it would cease promoting his current album and refused to work with him again in the future, and the powerhouse Creative Artists Agency quickly dropped him as a client.

In response, Manson released a statement.

Obviously, my art and my life have long been magnets for controversy, but these recent claims about me are horrible distortions of reality. My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. Regardless of how and why others are now choosing to misrepresent the past, that is the truth.

Manson is right; his rather pedestrian art and performative life have been magnets for controversy. But that is because they were built upon being intentionally provocative, particularly against Christianity.

He repeatedly stuck his thumb in the eye of Christians in order to draw attention to himself, with shocking yet predictable actions like proclaiming himself to be a minister in the Church of Satan (inducted by none other than Anton LaVey), and quoting famed occultist Aleister Crowleys dictum, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

It would seem, according to his accusers, that Manson actually lived that morally grotesque motto to the fullest, but the women on the allegedly unpleasant receiving end of it are now publicly exacting their revenge and ending his career.

Its a testament to the enormous cultural power of wokeness, with its two dominant denominations, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, that its ability to cancel heretics and blasphemers far exceeds anything conservative Christians were able to accomplish over the last 40 years.

That Manson thrived for so long in opposition to the old religion of Christianity, but has been utterly obliterated in no time at all by the new religion of wokeness, is revealing of the tectonic shift that has taken place in just the last four years in American culture.

Further proof of this is that the pop culture establishment, which so dutifully defended Manson when he was offending Christians back in the 90s, will not even contemplate tolerating his alleged sins against women now.

It is also striking that puritanical Christianity has been so soundly defeated in the culture wars by the entertainment industry, but that the puritanical impulse is still alive and well and thriving in Hollywood of all places, in the form of #MeToo feminism and BLM.

Unfortunately for Manson, the only difference between the old irrational, hypocritical and sex-obsessed religion of Christianity that he so brazenly defined himself in opposition to, and the new irrational, hypocritical and sex-obsessed religion of #MeToo wokeness that is currently crucifying him, is that Christianity at least offers the opportunity for redemption.

The truth is that Marilyn Manson danced with the devil to great success, but, as always, the bill comes due. Its the height of irony that it wasnt the puritans of conservative Christianity that took him down, but rather the witches of wokeness whove succeeded in burning him at the pop culture stake.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Originally posted here:
The swift cancellation of Marilyn Manson proves #MeToo is a more powerful cultural force than conservative Christianity ever was - RT

Buena Vista County is doing okay, considering. Our economy is in relatively decent shape with low unemployment. But the virus continues to ravage us with BV topping the 4,000-case mark last weekend. The schools are doing welllocally, the frontline workers have been heroes, and we at least are assured that effective vaccines are in production. The overriding and urgent goal of Iowa should be getting through this pandemic and recovering as quickly as possible.

Instead, the legislature controlled by the Republican Party is playing political games by ramming through a right-wing legislative agenda. No better illustration can be made than in education.

The governor and legislature are pushing school vouchers for students in underperforming districts. That is not the solution for Sac City. The solution is trying to help families and children succeed through stronger schools. That means money. Figure out why the district is not achieving, and design programs that make the public school more effective.

The same is true for an urban school district with a disadvantaged enrollment.

The brothers who own this newspaper are proud graduates of St. Marys High School and Catholic universities. We are strong supporters of the Iowa Tuition Grant, which supports Buena Vista University. Pell Grants support private institutions of higher education for students of limited means. Government funds support reading and school lunch programs. It is all good. St. Marys School is important to Storm Lakes social fabric. So is Buena Vista. They receive and deserve public support to the extent that they satisfy public goods by meeting state and federal education requirements.

But this is not the year to be pushing vouchers.

We are for grants that help private schools survive the pandemic. We would like to see the Iowa Tuition Grant increased in size. Support the existing tuition assistance tax credit set up for parochial schools. Discussion of vouchers can wait for another day, when we are past our current state of emergency. We must keep schools whole and not decide to refashion our public education system in the middle of a national crisis.

We have been chipping away at the foundations of education for years. State appropriations to public universities have declined while private corporate donations and tuition leading to enormous student debt loads have replaced them. Community colleges are increasing tuition and local property taxes. K-12 public school districts suffered during the economic recession of 2008-10 that drove Gov. Chet Culver out of office, and have since been starved further by the Branstad/Reynolds tenure with state aid that seldom keeps pace with inflation. The state took away the ability of teachers to bargain with the school board. We should leave bad enough alone. But the culture wars call. Vouchers have animated public school educators across the state.

Republicans would do well to slow down and just get through this emergency. Pass a standpat budget, help bail out public health agencies and schools, and get out of Des Moines. That is the best political strategy, too. The public generally supports open enrollment among school districts but not direct vouchers. The public supports the unique sharing arrangement that goes on between St. Marys, Buena Vista, Iowa Central and Storm Lake High School. There are all sorts of creative ways to support private and public schools, to provide a bit of competition to keep everyone sharp, that involve steady state investment and partnerships with private philanthropy. Vouchers are not the best way to achieve better academic performance for every student unless the state is prepared to give public schools what they need. They have been on an austerity budget for a decade, all of them, public and private, as Iowa conducts this great experiment in allowing education funding to lag economic performance. And that is precisely why Iowas economic performance is subpar, because we are short-changing education.

Right now, we dont need huge tax cuts or shifts in tax load. We dont need a debate over abortion, which actually is not a pressing problem in Buena Vista County. We dont need a hollering match over vouchers when so many of us are simply emotionally exhausted. The pandemic is the problem. Period. Use your heads. Get after it. Leave everything else alone.

Continued here:
Editorial: Quit culture wars, fight the pandemic - The Storm Lake Times