Last week there was a good article in The Times by Camilla Cavendish. Writing on the subject of charities lobbying and campaigning, she said that the Red Cross – and with it the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) – has always been able to maintain its effectiveness on the ground, in the direct provision of services and aid, because it has always been politically neutral. She says:
‘By refusing to take sides in conflicts, it has always stood for the victims. This has historically given it access to places that other organisations cannot penetrate… We are a sentimentalist society. We are supposed to get angry to show we care. The world now is full of advocates, and that is a good thing. But sometimes, the best way to speak for those with no voice is to keep silent.’
It may be more glamorous to be a household name, it may be valuable to seek to influence the legislative process, but these things are not the same as caring for people. Yet some charities reallocate their resources to campaigning and lobbying at the expense of their direct charitable activities.
When charities like the RSPCA or the NSPCC engage in contentious campaigning – on anti-hunting and anti-smacking respectively – they not only risk contravening charity law, which says that charities are not allowed to act in a way which is politically aligned, but they also polarise their support base, affecting what they can do for their beneficiaries.
It’s Christmas, so I’m going to risk an unashamed plug. My book, Who Cares? How State Funding and Political Activism Change Charity, will be published by Civitas early in the New Year. Some of its conclusions on this matter are rather stark. I will be interested to hear what you think. As Dr Johnson is reported to have said: ‘I never think I have hit hard unless it rebounds.’
Comments (3)
Yes, it is true that under left-wing influence, that charities are guilty of "mission creep".
A good example is Amnesty which is currently debating abortion rights.
Weren't they supposed to be about 'prisoners of conscience' or something?
Posted by Daggo | December 24, 2006 2:04 PM
Posted on December 24, 2006 14:04
Well said Nick! I restrict my giving to those who are "hands on".
Posted by Perdix![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 22, 2006 7:43 PM
Posted on December 22, 2006 19:43
As I understand it, the NSPCC is simply campaigning against the law on 'reasonable chastisement' which explicitly exempts children from the full protection of the law of assault, which applies to everyone else.
Why should children not have the same protection as everybody else and how can the NSPCC function properly against the current legal background?
Posted by HJHJ | December 20, 2006 7:11 PM
Posted on December 20, 2006 19:11