My fellow liberals - please don't donate to the Salvation Army

[ThisEndUp]

Sadly they have the lowest administration cost of ANY of the charities out there, so more of your money goes to the needy, but like any group they do have "items of concern" you may not be 100% on board with

 

[myselftheother]

So you "change the world" and I don't? That's an extremely ignorant thing to say.

You have no idea who I am or what I do with my time and money.

A bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but here's me just last month buying and delivering school supplies to an isolated community in the third world (not my first time, either)

Now that is putting your money where your mouth is. She actually got out there, went to where her help is needed and actually participated in applying her charity. This is what it's all about. This is how you change the world, one little bit at a time. Wonder what sort of impact on this little girl and her family's lives Emmy's time and work has, Melina? What are you doing everyday, as you said, to help the unfortunate?

Ok, I am being a bit of an asshole, Melina, but if you are going to jump on someone, and they kinda trump your argument...

 

[myselftheother]

Sometimes I do like to stir the pot. Being raised by devout Baptists has no doubt coloured the vociferousness of my feelings about religion. And the personal attacks on Emmy for a perfectly reasonable opinion definitely raised my ire.

There are a great many good organizations that are not hampered by a religious world view, and many times political advocacy is far more effective at reducing harm than "charity." What was more effective at reducing misery during the industrial revolution? Work houses and orphanages, or passing laws to eliminate child labour?

What would have been more effective at reducing poverty in India than Mother Theresa taking in unwed mothers as a charity? Maybe encouraging women to take control of their own destinies, and encouraging birth control and family planning on a national level -- instead of actively opposing such ideas? Just saying.

I spent two years of my life volunteering in a desperately poor third world country, working with local groups to extend and equip a school. (Not that it was a hardship; I look back at it as one of the best times of my life.) But I have put my effort into my beliefs. Have you?

I have done volunteer work myself in the addiction catagorie for some years, and have donated to the foodbank, organised at work a n xmas hamper for a chosen needy family, with clothes, toys for the kids, food galore and a ton of Safeway gift cards.

All through organizations like CKNW's Orphan Fund. We have to change the way we look at those who did make some poor decisions through whatever circumstances they came from, found themselves in, etc. Some people, no matter how fucked their life has become, whether it's drug dependancies to self medicate mental illnesses, to the single mother whose children need that boost, that bit of sunshine.

I agree with opening your eyes and doing some research on where your money goes, and I agree with what Hank has said in this post. Emmy is an inspiration to those of us who want to actually change our tiny little corner, and how to go about it.

 

[threepeat]

So you "change the world" and I don't? That's an extremely ignorant thing to say.

You have no idea who I am or what I do with my time and money.

A bit of a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but here's me just last month buying and delivering school supplies to an isolated community in the third world (not my first time, either)

Ouch... I like Melina, but this was pwnage

 

[Devo]

If you direct your attention to the top of your screen, you'll see that Emmy directed her comments to her "fellow liberals". I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you would not consider yourself her target audience, Devo, so you may donate to any charity you'd like. Problem solved!

This might help a few people participating in this thread... The optimal order of actions when participating in any online discussion is usually:

Read
Comprehend
Respond

I'm sure several participants have either been replacing "read" with "quickly skim", or perhaps just skipping the very important "comprehend" step so they can put maximum effort into the always fun "respond" portion of the discussion.

In her own words she says "Hello you, yes you! By your very participation in this hobby, I consider you to be a liberal-minded individual (note the small "l", not capital L, ha ha)". She considers everyone who participates in the hobby to be liberal minded, so Emmy has effectively labeled the vast majority of people on the board as "liberals".

I suggest that you:

Read
Comprehend
Refrain from submitting stupid posts

Now that were done splitting hairs, do you actually have anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

 

[Bartdude]

In her own words she says "Hello you, yes you! By your very participation in this hobby, I consider you to be a liberal-minded individual (note the small "l", not capital L, ha ha)". She considers everyone who participates in the hobby to be liberal minded, so Emmy has effectively labeled the vast majority of people on the board as "liberals".

I suggest that you:

Read
Comprehend
Refrain from submitting stupid posts

Now that were done splitting hairs, do you actually have anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

Dude - now you're just baiting and trolling and engaging in personal attacks.

Give it a rest.

 

[CJ Tylers]

Thumbs up for Emmy That's a very charitable attitude that you have... the only shameful thing is that even with all the wealth and riches in the world, we still need that level of charity.

 

[*emmanuelle]

Thanks V

Sure, I will send you a pm!

 

[*emmanuelle]

I never give a dime to faith-based organizations (except for some food banks like the Mustard Seed while I lived in Victoria).

My favourite charity is Medecins sans Frontieres. They do great work -- and always to people who really, really need it. And they have no religious crap to dispense with their assistance.

Yeah, I love the work that MSF / DWB does. I've had a lot of fun this year participating in the Reddit Atheist Community drive for MSF. We have already raised $185,000.00 !

Goooooooooo atheists! (though I prefer "secular humanist" myself)

 

[luvsdaty]

That's pretty cool that you get out & do something about it Emmy:clap2::thumb:.A lot of my buddies go down to Mexico,Dominican ect. ect. Just on vacation, but they usually bring school supplies with them & leave them as tips for the hotel staff(I'm not much of one for vacationing down south) Too much beautiful country around here(too many poor people here as well :0( Like I said previously, Charity is a very personnel thing with me so i won't go into it,but my hat is off to you.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

wow

I stopped reading at page 2 because I could hardly believe the non sense I was reading! So sorry if I'm repeating some stuff that's been said.

First of all, Emmy didn't suggest *not* donating to the needy but she suggested making informed decisions on who you donate to. She made a really valid point. It's extremely important to do some research about an organization or charity before donating - just as (hopefully) you do for companies and corporations before you purchase something. In both cases, your money equals support and approval and it's irresponsible to ignore that.

I think some people are being defensive and reactionary because the thread was framed as a liberal issue, which is really a shame because really, that's not the point and it's absurd to get all excited and automatically oppose the substance of what she's saying. I mean, get over it.

You'll be happy to know, Emmy, that I have no plans on giving the SA a penny of my money so they can use it for their lobbying and campaigning efforts that harm and stigmatize sex workers. They came to our door a couple of days ago and Harmony told them she would not support the SA's harmful positions. I would have said the same. There are PLENTY of charities and organizations that do GREAT work without spending considerable resources and efforts pursuing bullshit like the SA does.

The Salvation Army, in its “Submission to the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness” explains how they have worked “with people engaged in prostitution since the mid-1800’s.” With this background established, the report goes on to espouse the idea that prostitution is intrinsically destructive to the individuals and communities involved and the prostitutes themselves are without choice in their behaviour.


The Salvation Army’s Christian, patriarchal remedy to the situation is to provide mandatory programs to those criminalized by existing solicitation laws in the hopes that, despite empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, those individuals will eventually, willingly leave the profession after undergoing behaviour modification techniques available through therapy. Armed with anecdotal evidence implying most prostitutes want to leave their profession, The Salvation Army advocates an authoritarian approach whereby prostitutes are extracted using existing laws and are then transformed into productive, law-abiding citizens through social programs made available by government funding.


What the Salvation Army does not expose is how it is the largest provider of non-governmental social programs in Canada, would be the main recipient of this type of funding, making this submission fraught with conflicts of interest that question its legitimacy. While this interest group does bring to light the economic situation that exacerbates the problem of prostitution, its own self interest confuses the neutrality of its position on the subject.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/prostitution-canada-history-and-reconciliation

So guys, keep giving the SA your money. Great plan!


If you don't care about any of these issues and don't have a problem supporting and helping the SA accomplish them, then that's your right. If you are against the position the SA takes on these issues but still want to donate now that you know more, then.... well, I'm really not sure what to say to someone like you! Keep doing what you're doing but I wouldn't exactly make a public announcement about it how ridiculous and irresponsible that is.


Whatever. Some people are clueless, Emmy. And some people just like it that way, so there isn't much anyone can do about it. Meh. *shrugs*

Bell, Hook and Kettle

...


I’m speaking, of course, of the Salvation Army, which every Christmas employs Santa impersonators to ring bells beside hanging kettles into which passersby may deposit money. Now, to be fair, I must point out that the great majority of the cash thus donated goes to helping the poor via various programs; that’s highly commendable and the SA deserves to be praised for it.

...


I used to put money into those kettles every time I passed one, though I can no longer do so in good conscience because of the organization’s history of hatred toward my profession and its recently-renewed efforts to persecute and impoverish us.


In 2003, the Salvation Army reclaimed its prominent place among crusaders against harlots by establishing its “National Anti-trafficking Council“, one of whose principles is “Prostitution and related activities are not forms of work, are inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and contribute to the phenomenon of trafficking in persons.” It was one of the instigators behind the “Anti-prostitution pledge“, a U.S. government policy which denies funds to any health or aid organization unless it refuses help to prostitutes: ”Supporters of the pledge requirement argue that prostitution is inherently harmful and needs to be abolished, reject harm reduction approaches, and hold that legalized prostitution increases demand for sex trafficking.” Its propaganda calls all prostitution “sexual slavery”, and its name is always found alongside that of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Polaris Project, the Hunt Alternatives Fund, Shared Hope International and other anti-sex worker organizations whenever they agitate for further criminalization in the United States, Canada, the U.K. and other countries, or recriminalization in places like Australia and New Zealand.


Though its ubiquitous bell-ringers make it very easy to donate to the Salvation Army, I strongly suggest y’all find other worthy charities this Christmas (such as my own favorite, Toys for Tots). Though it did a great deal of good in the 20th century, the SA has returned to its anti-sex roots and has recently diverted large sums which should be going to the poor into efforts to persecute hookers instead. I urge everyone who reads this to boycott them, and to spend your charity dollars on organizations that care more about helping the unfortunate than about fighting to rob millions of women of their livelihoods and to suppress the sexual choices of consenting adults (including homosexuals) in the name of “saving” them.

In their own words...

Pornography

The Salvation Army opposes pornography in all of its forms. We believe that human sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator. The Bible presents sexual intimacy as a privilege that is ordained and blessed by God within the context of marriage. Pornography attacks and distorts God's design. It depersonalizes sexuality, emphasizing the carnal to the neglect of loving relationships and commitment.

Pornography is an increasingly harmful scourge on society, endangering and degrading the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of all those involved. It is clearly linked with prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, and other forms of sexual exploitation. Pornography promotes deviant sex and violence. It harms and demeans those who are portrayed as sexual objects, as well as its users and purveyors.

Pornography is not an issue of private morality alone. It has become a major economic force with vast societal and ethical implications. The Salvation Army believes that all people have the right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons. Those who neglect the public interest in this regard should be held legally and morally accountable.

The Salvation Army firmly supports education on the dangers of pornography and on matters of wholesome sexuality based on the teachings of the New Testament.

Christians, no less than others, are vulnerable to the pervasive presence of sexually explicit messages and materials. The grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit can enable individuals to rise above unwholesome and addictive sexual influences.




Human Trafficking

Human trafficking is undeniably correlated to pornography, prostitution and other aspects of the sex industry in our society. This relationship exposes the evil and materialistic elements of the sex industry that both feed off of and contribute to the exploitation of vulnerable and helpless individuals.




Marriage

The Salvation Army affirms the New Testament standard of marriage, which is the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God (Genesis 2:24), and His Word establishes its significance (Matthew 19:4-6).

Marriage is the only proper context for sexual intimacy. Scripture demands abstinence before, and faithfulness within, marriage.

 

[Smilf]

After their smear campaign and other things I outright disagree with regarding their "policies", there's no way I would give to the SA. This year I will be donating money to local women's transitions houses (well one in particular) - this is where battered women go with their children, when they are fleeing domestic violence and unfortunately the holiday season is when violence is on the increase.

Emmy, I'm glad you went to Africa - I have been helping a friend with marketing and web design who runs a program there and am hoping to go over next year to do some hands on work.

 

[Miss*Bijou]

After their smear campaign and other things I outright disagree with regarding their "policies", there's no way I would give to the SA. This year I will be donating money to local women's transitions houses (well one in particular) - this is where battered women go with their children, when they are fleeing domestic violence and unfortunately the holiday season is when violence is on the increase.

Not the Vancouver rape relief shelter, I hope...

 

[Smilf]

Not the Vancouver rape relief shelter, I hope...

Heck no - transition house is different than a shelter.

 

[huggzy]

wow

"The Salvation Army, in its “Submission to the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws of the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness” explains how they have worked “with people engaged in prostitution since the mid-1800’s.” With this background established, the report goes on to espouse the idea that prostitution is intrinsically destructive to the individuals and communities involved and the prostitutes themselves are without choice in their behaviour.


The Salvation Army’s Christian, patriarchal remedy to the situation is to provide mandatory programs to those criminalized by existing solicitation laws in the hopes that, despite empirical evidence that suggests otherwise, those individuals will eventually, willingly leave the profession after undergoing behaviour modification techniques available through therapy. Armed with anecdotal evidence implying most prostitutes want to leave their profession, The Salvation Army advocates an authoritarian approach whereby prostitutes are extracted using existing laws and are then transformed into productive, law-abiding citizens through social programs made available by government funding.


What the Salvation Army does not expose is how it is the largest provider of non-governmental social programs in Canada, would be the main recipient of this type of funding, making this submission fraught with conflicts of interest that question its legitimacy. While this interest group does bring to light the economic situation that exacerbates the problem of prostitution, its own self interest confuses the neutrality of its position on the subject.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/prost...reconciliation"



So guys, keep giving the SA your money. Great plan!


If you don't care about any of these issues and don't have a problem supporting and helping the SA accomplish them, then that's your right. If you are against the position the SA takes on these issues but still want to donate now that you know more, then.... well, I'm really not sure what to say to someone like you! Keep doing what you're doing but I wouldn't exactly make a public announcement about it how ridiculous and irresponsible that is.


Whatever. Some people are clueless, Emmy. And some people just like it that way, so there isn't much anyone can do about it. Meh. *shrugs*

So what is your issue on this Bijou?? The Submission to the Subcommittee you linked to clearly indicates that the SA position is specifically regarding street level prostitution and human trafficking. Their position is to use existing laws to educate SW's and john's and give SW's opportunities to find a way out - and not to use these laws to prosecute. They specifically state that this position does not necessarily relate to sex workers not on the street ie. SP's like most of you.

As far as the "conflict of interest"?!?! What conflict of interest...there isn't anyone on the planet who would read this paper without knowing that the SA has a specific position on this issue (their not "neutral"?!?! no shit, Sherlock). Despite the lack of neutrality their submission seems quite balanced to me and strikes me as a position that I would personally support from the perspective of street level prostitution.

What about this submission offended you so much???

In their own words...

Pornography

The Salvation Army opposes pornography in all of its forms. We believe that human sexuality is a gift of a loving Creator. The Bible presents sexual intimacy as a privilege that is ordained and blessed by God within the context of marriage. Pornography attacks and distorts God's design. It depersonalizes sexuality, emphasizing the carnal to the neglect of loving relationships and commitment.

Pornography is an increasingly harmful scourge on society, endangering and degrading the physical, moral, and spiritual welfare of all those involved. It is clearly linked with prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, and other forms of sexual exploitation. Pornography promotes deviant sex and violence. It harms and demeans those who are portrayed as sexual objects, as well as its users and purveyors.

Pornography is not an issue of private morality alone. It has become a major economic force with vast societal and ethical implications. The Salvation Army believes that all people have the right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons. Those who neglect the public interest in this regard should be held legally and morally accountable.

The Salvation Army firmly supports education on the dangers of pornography and on matters of wholesome sexuality based on the teachings of the New Testament.

Christians, no less than others, are vulnerable to the pervasive presence of sexually explicit messages and materials. The grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit can enable individuals to rise above unwholesome and addictive sexual influences.

Is this position really offensive to you? Again, I think that even people who disagree with this position can deep down appreciate the perspective they espouse on this. I remember a time early in my life prior to the internet age where sex was something esteemed to be far more sacred than it is now, and there is no doubt in my mind that porn has affected our society immeasurably. Whether people think this is a negative or not is debateable, but to suggest that porn hasn't changed the society we live in is undeniable.

Is this really such an evil position?

Human Trafficking

Human trafficking is undeniably correlated to pornography, prostitution and other aspects of the sex industry in our society. This relationship exposes the evil and materialistic elements of the sex industry that both feed off of and contribute to the exploitation of vulnerable and helpless individuals.

I don't get it. What is your problem with their opposition to human trafficking?

 

[Devo]

Some great news for Emmy!

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/chari...g+sports+spending+spree/6442539335/story.html

 

[Smilf]

Some great news for Emmy!

http://www.globalwinnipeg.com/chari...g+sports+spending+spree/6442539335/story.html

I love how they all keep blaming sporting events - kinda like the, buying sex is not a sport campaign, pre and during the olympics. Maybe they're sick and tired of giving money to a fascist, religious organization that believes women don't have the right to choose to do what they want to do.

 

[susi]

So what is your issue on this Bijou?? The Submission to the Subcommittee you linked to clearly indicates that the SA position is specifically regarding street level prostitution and human trafficking. Their position is to use existing laws to educate SW's and john's and give SW's opportunities to find a way out - and not to use these laws to prosecute. They specifically state that this position does not necessarily relate to sex workers not on the street ie. SP's like most of you.

As far as the "conflict of interest"?!?! What conflict of interest...there isn't anyone on the planet who would read this paper without knowing that the SA has a specific position on this issue (their not "neutral"?!?! no shit, Sherlock). Despite the lack of neutrality their submission seems quite balanced to me and strikes me as a position that I would personally support from the perspective of street level prostitution.

What about this submission offended you so much???




Is this position really offensive to you? Again, I think that even people who disagree with this position can deep down appreciate the perspective they espouse on this. I remember a time early in my life prior to the internet age where sex was something esteemed to be far more sacred than it is now, and there is no doubt in my mind that porn has affected our society immeasurably. Whether people think this is a negative or not is debateable, but to suggest that porn hasn't changed the society we live in is undeniable.

Is this really such an evil position?



I don't get it. What is your problem with their opposition to human trafficking?

they are basing their fundraising on debunked junk science that casts ALL sp's as trafficking victims and are NOT working on helping people exit the street level sex industry. that is the problem.

they also do not support human trafficking victims in the ways recommended by the foremost experts in the world instead lumping them in with men fresh out of prison and with multiple barriers- mental health issues, addictions....

they are liars and use myths about sp's to fundraise and perpetuating the tired old assumptions that we need care and do not know what's best for us.

educating john's? no they aren't.....? they are promoting the nordic model of criminalize the client, that mean's you. do you really think it will be cool to face criminal charges and the total destruction of your life over some companionship?

the sally ann are a morality and faith based organization, they move forward based on ideals irregardless of the outcome for those they claim to want to "save".

love susie

 

[huggzy]

they are basing their fundraising on debunked junk science that casts ALL sp's as trafficking victims and are NOT working on helping people exit the street level sex industry. that is the problem.

they also do not support human trafficking victims in the ways recommended by the foremost experts in the world instead lumping them in with men fresh out of prison and with multiple barriers- mental health issues, addictions....

they are liars and use myths about sp's to fundraise and perpetuating the tired old assumptions that we need care and do not know what's best for us.

educating john's? no they aren't.....? they are promoting the nordic model of criminalize the client, that mean's you. do you really think it will be cool to face criminal charges and the total destruction of your life over some companionship?

the sally ann are a morality and faith based organization, they move forward based on ideals irregardless of the outcome for those they claim to want to "save".

love susie

They specifically state in this paper that their focus is not all sp's, just street walkers. The paper goes out of its way to make this delineation. Furthermore the paper specifically states that they do not support criminalization...so where do you base your position from?

I'm not debating you on what help they do or don't do because I'm not educated enough on this issue like you are. But can you tell us what you mean when you say they are not helping people to get off the street? Do you say this because they are doing nothing, or because they do things in ways you don't agree with? That is an important delineation as well.

I've been busted for "communicating" before and was put through "the program". Outside of the huge hassle and embarrassment (and that I would not ever want to go through it again) I wasn't criminally charged and never faced going through court. I hated doing the counselling but if forced to say it, I'd suggest that I did learn a bit about the darker side of the industry. Any rational person going through this program can easily discern for themselves during this counselling the difference between the SW's they are educating people about (because these programs are put on for guys busted at street level) versus the girls doing this industry by choice such as the escorts on this board. Guy's aren't stupid...we can figure these things out when we go through it.

While I feared being criminally incriminated during this process, the fact is that it never came to that. I learned something about this industry and avoid frequenting situations where I suspect there is the possibility of coercion (non english speaking asian brothels etc.).

Do I think that there is a civil rights issue with the whole issue of prostitution and the criminal code? Yes. But outside of that I'm not sure that the diversion program is as bad as people make it out to be. Its a huge hassle and embarrassing, but no one is going to jail because of it.

With respect to the human trafficking issue, is there a possibility that the issue with "lumping" women in with men in these situations is more complicated than you're portraying? Could it be because there isn't enough funding to provide separate facilities for these men and women? Trafficking victims aren't the only people the SA is trying to assist...but maybe they can only do so much with the resources they have??

Maybe we need to give them more so that they can provide solutions...rather than boycott them so that things get worse?

 

[susi]

i agree that diversion is preferable to criminal record but that john school program has apparently been suspended so no more diversion...

the SA website says it so it must be true....? they are not specifically helping SW's at all except where SW's are part of a broader meal line or shelter.

i can tell you i have studied the trafficking issue to death and every where and i am not mis interpreting anything, they out right stated they were "building a house" for trafficking victims, they were not, they merely revamped space they already had and used the rest of the money to do whatever they wanted, we'll never know because they are a church and do not have to open their books to anyone.

we tried and tried to "help" the sally ann understnad what they should be doing, offered to help them to redesign, offered our assistance at no charge only to be told "we should be greatful, the sally ann were eliminating my competition." i am not shitting you, major brian venebles, the guy always running off on TV.

he acted as if all sp's are greedy bitches who only care about money and even thought we would thank them for rescuing trafficking victims as we could then have their money too.....

i can tell you after 10 years in social justice and 3 years confronting the SA there is no limit to the ways people will exploit the myths about sex work to meet their own goals, in the case of the sally ann- money for whatever they want and a "morale and clean" society- they don't care who they hurt to do it. they refuse to engage with those the want to "save" and even ignore the facts when they are right in front of them...

ok, i could go on but i won't.

i appreciate that huggzy would sooner work towards change and i have to agree with that but in the case of the sally ann, they were totally un willing and stubborn and it will cost people their lives. money is not what is required, the SA require a change of heart/ attitude. they need to listen to the people they intend to serve.

love susie