Looking at the charitable purposes/activities distinction through a political advocacy lens: a trans-Tasman perspective

Q3 Social Sciences
I. Murray
{"title":"Looking at the charitable purposes/activities distinction through a political advocacy lens: a trans-Tasman perspective","authors":"I. Murray","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2019.1588479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In addition to their service delivery role, charities enable a range of process benefits, such as acting as sites of collective and political action. Indeed, political activities frequently arise from and are informed by service delivery. Developments around the world suggest some reticence about charities engaging in political advocacy, yet Australia and New Zealand no longer have a political purpose doctrine in their charity laws. This paper focuses on two contentious forms of political advocacy—election campaigning and illegal protest activities—and argues that in only some circumstances do those activities affect an entity’s charitable purpose or charitable status in Australia and New Zealand.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"30 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2019.1588479","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2019.1588479","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT In addition to their service delivery role, charities enable a range of process benefits, such as acting as sites of collective and political action. Indeed, political activities frequently arise from and are informed by service delivery. Developments around the world suggest some reticence about charities engaging in political advocacy, yet Australia and New Zealand no longer have a political purpose doctrine in their charity laws. This paper focuses on two contentious forms of political advocacy—election campaigning and illegal protest activities—and argues that in only some circumstances do those activities affect an entity’s charitable purpose or charitable status in Australia and New Zealand.
从政治倡导的角度看慈善目的/活动的区别:跨塔斯曼的视角
摘要慈善机构除了发挥服务提供的作用外,还提供一系列的过程福利,例如充当集体和政治行动的场所。事实上,政治活动往往源于服务的提供,并从服务的提供中获得信息。世界各地的事态发展表明,慈善机构对参与政治宣传保持沉默,但澳大利亚和新西兰的慈善法中不再有政治目的原则。本文关注两种有争议的政治宣传形式——竞选活动和非法抗议活动,并认为只有在某些情况下,这些活动才会影响实体在澳大利亚和新西兰的慈善目的或慈善地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信