Why the government’s charity gagging is based on the flakiest of evidence

Posted on

When looking at new issues arising on freedom of speech in this country I came across a really excellent blog post that summarised exactly why the government is wrong to impose new gagging clauses on charities. Written by Andrew Purkis, it is entitled:

The Rotten Basis for Government Anti-Advocacy Policy

and is subtitled:

The Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) “evidence” base for the Government’s anti-advocacy clamp-down on charities’ use of public funds is a muddled Tea Party-type polemic.

It makes for compelling reading and tears apart the evidence base for this change.

I would also recommend Andrew Purkis' follow up letter to the Cabinet Office, which says in its conclusion

So please be honest. Please do not reinforce what you know to be an incomplete stereotype of what the contribution of charities is. Do not speak of [their work in] influencing [policy] as if it were a diversion from good causes and improving people’s lives. In one example after another, [that work] is in truth, and always has been, an integral and essential part of pursuing charitable causes and changing people’s lives for the better.

That is exactly right.

So why would you want to stop charities doing that?