Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: >> On Wednesday 24 December 2008 18:43, Phil Nash wrote: >>> Geoffrey Plourde wrote: >>>>> Well where will it stop? If we have a project, we should have a >>>>> memorial project for all disasters. I echo Mr. Bimmler in his >>>>> concerns about the motives behind this proposal. >>> >>> I'm in some agreement here because my experience of UK charity law >>> is that it is not generally permitted to have a "political" >>> purpose, and certainly taking such a strong line on any >>> "repression", "genocide" etc, would appear to be anathema to a >>> charitable objective. It's OK, I suppose, if the United Nations has >>> used such terminology, but I don't think we should be seen to be >>> taking partisan sides in political disputes, because that dilutes >>> the educational charitable status of the Foundation. It's entirely >>> a different issue to support humanitarian aid to the victims, >>> however, and I am open to the idea that such memorial projects >>> might have that idea as a focus. However, the way it's been put >>> forward seems to militate against that construction. >>> >> >> I fail to see how simply presenting a list of peoples' names and >> telling their stories constitutes "taking partisan sides in >> political disputes." It's educating people about the impact of >> these events, plain and simple. -- >> Kurt Weber >> http://blog.kurtweber.us >> <[email protected]>
That would be fine, up to a point. On the other hand, putting all that under a POV title within the WMF umbrealls is quite a different issue, and not one, I think, which would be palatable to the WMF, for reasons I've already outlined. Kurt, as you now should realise, politics at any level is a subtle and complex business, and my personal opinion is that you should stick to marching bands. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
