Amnesty International vs The Tax Man
Blogged by James Preece on 16th December 2009

I've always been a big fan of gift aid. There's something really satisfying about the thought of dangling some cash under the tax man's nose and then whipping it away to give a good cause.
For those who don't know, Gift Aid is a scheme in the UK where you can allow charities to claim back some of the tax you paid on a donation. So for instance, if I give £20 to a charity they get £20 but if I Gift Aid it then they can claim back the tax I paid and they actually get more like £25. Hooray. Poor Darling, so near and yet so far.
Today I received a phone call from Amnesty International who I used to support with a monthly donation until they decided to support abortion at which time the money started going to SPUC instead. Amnesty didn't want to ask for more money, they wanted to ask me to give them permission to put in a Gift Aid claim for the money I already gave.
It wouldn't cost me anything and since I was giving a few quid a month for a couple of years they could stand to do quite nicely out of it - and it would be a kick in the teeth for the tax man.
I said no, explaining that I could no longer do anything to support Amnesty because they have become pro-abortion. The lady down the phone said that's not true, we are not pro-abortion, we are just against criminalising women.
The fact is that because of Amnesty International's policy change there will be unborn babies killed who would not otherwise have been. I supported Amnesty because I thought they were about standing up for the weak and defenseless - how much more weak and defenseless can you get than an unborn child?
So as painful as it is, the government get to keep my money - no doubt they will spend it on free condoms for toddlers.
Sometimes you just can't win.
















Reader Comments
snafu said...
I take it from this that you believe that defending the rights of the unborn *requires* the criminalisation of women who have an abortion. (Or am I reading too much into your stance?)
If so, could you offer an opinion on what civil penalty they should suffer...if you were writing the laws, that is...
Would be great if you could clarify.
+-
+3
James said...
I didn't say that defending the rights of the unborn *requires* the criminalisation of women who have an abortion - the lady on the phone said "we are not pro-abortion, we are just against criminalising women." I also understand that many women who have an abortion have no idea what they are doing and think it's okay because somebody tells them it is - I'm not suggesting a witch hunt against those women, I think those women would be better served by a law that made it clear to them the full gravity of what they were doing. There are women (I have known a couple) who have had an abortion when they were younger and now feel they were lied to. "If I had known" they say "I wouldn't have done it."
In terms of the penalty for killing a unborn child - what should the penalty be for a mother who kills her recently born month old baby?
+-
-1
snafu said...
I'm not suggesting a witch hunt against those women, I think those women would be better served by a law that made it clear to them the full gravity of what they were doing.
Ok, but not specific.
In terms of the penalty for killing a unborn child - what should the penalty be for a mother who kills her recently born month old baby?
Seeing as you ask, I think the penalty for killing a 1-month old should be life imprisonment. Do you think the same for an unborn?
I really have to try not to put words in your mouth here. It seems you're coming vanishingly close (without actually saying it) to stating that your favoured civil punishment for procuring an abortion is life imprisonment. Is that a fair summary?
+-
+2
James said...
Hi Snafu,
I only mean't to suggest that the penalty for killing a child before birth ought to be comparable to the penalty for killing a child shortly after it. It was you who suggested life imprisonment.
Personally, I don't think it's as simple as saying "do this, get X years". Even in the case of adult murder we don't say that - the courts make all sorts of allowances for the sorts of preasure a person was under etc.
For example, I would advocate quite a serious sentence for a doctor carrying out abortions because they clearly know exactly what they are doing.
I must emphasise again that what I am definitely not saying is "any woman who has had an abortion is a cold blooded murderer" - many women simply do not understand the gravity of what they are doing or are under immense preassure.
I'm not sure how much more specific you want me to be. I think that the simple fact of abortion being against the law would make an immense difference to the numbers of children being killed in the womb.
I think that would be a good thing.
+-
+1
Mark Dobson said...
It's quite easy not to put words in people's mouths. The trick, basically, is to just not do it.
You seem to wish to start an argument. Is that a fair summary?
+-