The last time we checked in with Canadian MRA group CAFE (Canadian Association for Equality), the group’s planned “Equality Day” music fest had just imploded after participants and sponsors of the event found out about the group’s Men’s Rights agenda and fled, saying they’d been misled about the group’s aims.
Now it turns out that the group’s application for charitable status may have also contained some, well, let’s just call it misleading information. In March, CAFE was granted charitable status, which came as a bit of a shock to a lot of people, myself included, given the group’s seemingly symbiotic relationship with the distinctly uncharitable Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men.
But will they be able to retain this charitable status? The alternative weekly Now Toronto is reporting that the group’s application for charitable status contains some pretty dubious claims. In its application, CAFE listed several feminist groups and a federal agency
as potential participants in its “regular panel discussion series” on women’s and men’s issues. … There’s just one problem: none of the groups listed has ever been involved with CAFE.
Needless to say, none of these organizations were happy to find out that CAFE had used their name without permission:
The executive directors of Egale and LEAF said they had no knowledge of ever being approached by the organization, and said they would not work with CAFE if they were asked. Before NOW contacted them, neither organization had any knowledge that CAFE had listed them on its application.A spokesperson for Status of Women Canada, the federal agency, told NOW in an email that none of its representatives had ever been involved in a CAFE event.
The group also claimed it was planning to work with university scholars from women’s studies departments, and specifically named Professor Sarita Srivastava, an associate sociology professor at Queen’s who studies anti-racist challenges to Canadian feminist groups. On its application CAFE said it was “currently” setting up a panel discussion to include Srivastava.Reached by email, Srivastava told NOW that she was “stunned” to learn her name was on the form … .
Yo, don’t neglect the fact that Justin Trottier is the former National Executive Director of CFI Canada, an atheist/skeptic org that I encourage people to avoid, as well as one of the founders of the old Freethought Association of Canada, and his uncle is both a former board member for CFI and a major donor to McGill University.
Ha, I saw this on r/amr and meant to send it to you.
I for one am shocked SHOCKED that they faked information on their forms to get charitable status. It’s all just so shocking. Shocked…. *sips Orange Crush*
They really have to stop lying about people being associated with them.
In most first-world countries, losing charitable status once you have it is really pretty hard, unless you’re actually financially incontinent or just fail to file the paperwork or whatever. It’d be nice if this had an effect, but I’m afraid I’d be surprised.
Great news! I know a little bit about LEAF and it’s mind-boggling CAFE would drag a high-profile legal advocacy group into their web of lies. LEAF has acted as intervenors in historic Supreme Court of Canada cases.
I look forward to the day one of these men’s rights groups gets their asses sued and loses big-time. AVFM keeps courting disaster in that regard.
I’m not surprised. CAFE is an evil organization that aims to make life even more hellish for abuse victims, particularly abused women. It only makes sense for CAFE to have literally zero integrity.
That Now Toronto article is totally worth reading.
It also contains a link to a previous article about “Equality Day” titled “Men’s rights whitewash”: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=198263
First sentence of the article:
Final sentence of the article:
Foresight is MISANDRY!!
Truly, the depth of CAFE’s opportunism and immorality in stealing the reputations of feminist groups they pretend to despise has shocked me.
@davidgerard
Are you in the US? I am, and the people I know who run small non-for profits, and I don’t know anyone who runs a big one, have told me that getting tax exempt status is a pain in the ass ordeal that can take years, and the IRS reviews and/or revokes tax exempt status all the time. It came up recently because the lefties I know were amused by the fury over tea party groups allegedly getting targeted by the IRS, since they also have been put through the ringer by the IRS for years themselves. Not wanting paying taxes is a big deal to the government, unless you’re a huge corporation or a big political donor, then often your accountant and/or the government can work something out.
The MRAs really have this weird belief that nobody can ever see through their crap. Which is odd, because they’ve got to be the least convincing bunch of liars anywhere.
cloudiah,
No worries, I noticed Jason Thibeault retweeting one of the New Toronto reporters’ link to the article, and forwarded it on to where it would be useful ;-). I was interested to see further involvement by Justin Trottier behind the scene – he and some of his near relatives (or at least, two other persons with the same surname!) having played their part in setting CAfE up as a corporation (the article has a copy of the Scribd document of the charity application, which includes attachments such as the articles of incorporation, the body’s constitution, and so on). Nice bit of paper-chasing by the New Toronto people.
Mariangela,
“Truly, the depth of CAFE’s opportunism and immorality in stealing the reputations of feminist groups they pretend to despise has shocked me.”
Omg, I just had an aha! Moment. (Not the band) They are piggy backing on the established reputation of feminists!
How telling. Disgengenuous as fuck, but very telling.
Yeah, if you find yourself dishonestly hiding behind an organization you think is hate, just so you can use their cred to get you an in, you may have just a teensy problem with the integrity of your movement. Seriously, that’s embarrassing.
This is so stupid it’s hillarious! Do they really think that they can just say that Such and Such supports them, when Such and Such:
1. Has the ability to google their names and ‘agency’ and figure out who they are and
2. Either knows or will find out that their own position on the issues is diametrically opposed CARE’s.
This is a nasty case of fraud and, frankly seems libelous to me.
David, you should link into a certain someone’s use of a charity called the “Canadian Maltese Charitable Service Trust” to raise funds for men’s rights events too:
https://fundanything.com/en/campaigns/stop-domestic-violence-everywhere
Are they also using another “charity” as a front to raise money for issues unrelated to that charity? Also seems worth investigating.
How stupid do you have to be to actually put the names of people, without their knowledge and permission, on your application for something like this?????
And I thought they were idiots before. Here is hoping that they get all that they so richly deserve, beginning with our laughter and scorn.
Being Canadian, I wrote a letter to my MLA about CAFE and it’s dubious claim to being a charity when I heard about it. I hope it helped.
Everyone go look at Cloudiah’s link! This looks really sleazy.
Not too much MRA action in the article comments, yet. So far a couple of dudes saying “Lies! I don’t have to prove their lies because I said it first! No touch-backs times infinity!” and “Feminists are violent box-cutter weilding conference interrupters”. Plus Karen has decided to stretch plausibility to the point of snapping:
***I have no idea how blockquotes work so I’m not gonna***
karen straughan Aporia27 • 20 minutes ago
That’s because there isn’t a concrete claim in this article.
“it listed the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), Egale Canada, and Status of Women Canada as potential participants in its “regular panel discussion series” on women’s and men’s issues. The CRA granted CAFE charitable status in March, 2014.
“There’s just one problem: none of the groups listed has ever been involved with CAFE.”
There’s a word in there that I don’t think means what you think it means–“potential”. SOW, LEAF and Egale are all gender based non-profits. CAFE is a gender based non-profit. It makes sense that if CAFE were to host panel discussions on gender issues, they’d invite people who speak for the opposing viewpoint. Unless, of course, CAFE was only interested in fostering an echo chamber, in which no opposing viewpoints would be welcome.
But that would be taking a leaf from… well, LEAF.
CAFE has plans to host multiple viewpoints. Therefore listing potential organizations with opposing viewpoints that might be invited to participate in discussions, panels and debates is NOT the same thing as saying “these people agree with us”, which is what this article and those interviewed seem to think it means.
If I were a fledgling political party looking for political party status, and I listed the Greens, PCs, NDP and Libs as “potential participants” in regular panel discussions, would you have the same problem? Would you somehow think that I was implying an affiliation or association between my party and the ones I listed as potential discussion participants? No? How shocking.
As for Srivastava, she declined an opportunity to speak with/debate CAFE because she’d be out of town, not because she was loath to work or talk with them–she even admitted it, to her credit.
I’m not going to make the claim Mike Hunt did–that the article is full of lies. Because it isn’t. But the article is full of insinuations that CAFE lied, when it didn’t. Nothing CAFE said about LEAF, Egale or SOW was false. Nothing they said about Srivastava was, according to her, false. CAFE did not make any claim that they were affiliated with any women’s organization–they only claimed that specific women’s organizations would be worthy debate or discussion partners.
This entire article is a 101 in spin. Study well, a**holes, because there’s lots to learn here about sticking to the truth while promoting a falsehood.
***I have no idea how blockquotes work so I’m not gonna***
I’m gonna revamp my resume and state that I may potentially be partnering with Bill Gates on creating a new Microsoft-lite company. Because, heck, so long as both of us are alive it’s all plausible, right?
Who was it said “Your consent is not required” about using the police and feminist organisations’ logos on their nasty posters? They seem to be taking a leaf out if his book.
*of*, even.
Awesome. I’mma put Warren Buffett down on my loan application as a “potential” guarantor. He might say yes if I ever actually ask him, right?
Further to cloudiah’s link:
http://motorcitymuckraker.com/blog/2014/06/12/odd-twist-controversial-mens-rights-conference-in-detroit-moves-to-suburban-vfw/#comment-1432469163
Is he independently wealthy or…?
Sure they do.