Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality

---

Policy Statement

Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality

Reference Number
CPS-021

Effective date
September 2, 2003

Purpose
The policy describes how applicants can be registered as charities under the advancement of education or other purposes beneficial to the community categories. The policy is also relevant for immigrant, refugee, ethnocultural, or other organizations seeking to include such objects in their governing documents.[Footnote 1]

Summary
Organizations whose purpose is to educate about, or to promote racial equality can qualify for registration as a charity. Promoting racial equality includes efforts to eliminate racial or ethnic discrimination. It also includes promoting positive race relations by, for example, working to improve relations between any racial and/or ethnic groups in Canada.

Definitions

Promoting racial equality means working to ensure the full and equitable participation of racial and ethnocultural groups in Canada, consistent with the equality rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, existing legislation, and public policy. It includes efforts such as eliminating racial (including ethnic) discrimination, and encouraging positive race relations, which encompasses efforts to improve relations between any racial and/or ethnic groups in Canada.

A racial or cultural group is defined by its race, colour, national or ethnic origin.[Footnote 2] To the extent that religion is inextricably linked to the group's racial or cultural identity, it can also become a defining characteristic.

Racism includes "racist ideologies, prejudiced attitudes, discriminatory behaviour, structural arrangements, and institutionalized practices"[Footnote 3] resulting in racial or ethnic inequality. It can be characterized as "a set of implicated or explicit beliefs, assumptions and actions based upon an ideology that one racial or ethnic group is superior to another."[Footnote 4]

Racial discrimination has been defined as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."[Footnote 5]

The objects of an organization are the same as its purposes; in this policy, the words are used interchangeably.

Implementation

Rationale

1. Racial discrimination is an identified social problem prohibited by an international convention to which most countries are signatories, making the promotion of racial equality an integral part of the public policy of many countries. In Canada, this is clearly evidenced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, legislative responses such as federal, provincial, and territorial statutes, as well as official declarations of government policy. It is further evidenced by the establishment of public institutions whose purposes are to eradicate racism.

2. There is also an increasing international recognition of the elimination of racial discrimination as a charitable purpose, based in part on the evolution of the law. For example, the U.S. recognizes as charitable the elimination of prejudice and discrimination.[Footnote 6] In the U.K., "promoting good race relations, endeavouring to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race and encouraging equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups" [Footnote 7] are charitable purposes. Details of these approaches can be found in Appendix A of this policy.

3. Canada's courts have not directly addressed whether promoting racial equality would qualify as a charitable purpose.[Footnote 8] The cases where this possibility emerged did not serve to expand the limited existing case law. Most notably, in the Supreme Court of Canada decision Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v. M.N.R., the Hon. Mr. Justice Iacobucci declined to comment on "whether the elimination of prejudice and discrimination may be recognized as a charitable purpose at common law."[Footnote 9]

4. Until now, the Canada Revenue Agency has relied on Re Strakosch,[Footnote 10] a decision of the British courts in 1949, which found "appeasing racial feeling within the community" to be a political purpose. This decision acknowledged that promoting race relations through educational methods might be considered charitable, and, as a result, applicants whose purposes and activities were clearly worded to fit within the advancement of education category of charity have been registered in Canada.

5. Given the significant change in Canadian legislation and public policy since that decision, however, the reconsideration of whether promoting positive race relations is still a political purpose is overdue. One of the reasons a political purpose cannot be charitable is that political issues are ultimately for Parliament to decide. With Parliamentary recognition of the promotion of positive race relations and the elimination of racial discrimination in Canada, it appears possible to move beyond the Re Strakosch case. Promoting racial equality is consistent with existing, broadly-based legislation and public policy. This establishes it as undoubtedly beneficial to the public, and no longer political. As a result, the Canada Revenue Agency intends to accept the promotion of racial equality as manifestly beneficial to the public. Details of the evolution of the law and public policy in Canada can be found in Appendix B.

6. In order to be considered a charitable purpose, promoting racial equality must also fall within one or more of the acceptable categories of charity. In addition to educating about racial equality, or about methods of promoting it under the advancement of education, the Canada Revenue Agency now also recognizes the promotion of racial equality as analogous to an existing charitable purpose—mental and moral improvement[Footnote 11]—under the fourth category of charity, other purposes beneficial to the community.

Determining charitable registration

General requirements

7. Any organization that wants to be registered as a charity must have exclusively charitable objects and must be set up for the benefit of the public. For more information, see Guidelines for Registering a Charity - Meeting the Public Benefit Test, CPS-024. and Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes (T4063).

Objects and activities

8. Objects can potentially qualify either under advancement of education (see paragraphs 14 to 20), or under other purposes beneficial to the community (see paragraphs 21 to 29), depending on the focus of the applicant. It is also acceptable to propose objects that fall within both categories.

9. The wording of objects needs to be precise enough so as to limit the applicant to what is charitable at law. The proposed activities must also clearly relate to the applicant's objects and directly further their purposes.

10. Objects cannot include efforts to retain, oppose, or change the law or policy or decisions of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country, as this is considered a political purpose and, therefore, not charitable.

11. Objects also cannot include a focus on international relations, which is the purview of the state.[Footnote 12]

12. The objects and activities should focus on direct program delivery (e.g., conferences, cross-cultural exchanges, or discussion groups) as well as on statements of principle. This is because general statements of principle, taken in isolation, can be vague and can lead to problems of interpretation.

13. Like all charities, organizations qualifying under this policy are limited in the extent of political activity they can undertake. For more information, applicants should refer to the policy called Political Activities, CPS-022.[Footnote 13]

Advancement of education

14. Groups whose purposes are to educate about racial equality, or about methods of promoting it, are recognized as charitable. This is not a shift in current practice, as purposes clearly worded to fall under the advancement of education category, operating within Canada as well as abroad, have been registered in the past.[Footnote 14] The following is a clarification of the guidelines for this category.

15. While there are many ways that groups might educate about racial equality, the following are examples of the kinds of programs that would be acceptable. These should not be confused with the acceptable wording of objects—such examples are provided in paragraphs 18 and 19.

• programs that educate about individual or systemic racism;

• development of curriculum materials for anti-racism or diversity training and leadership programs;

• research groups focused on a range of topics (e.g., documenting patterns of disadvantage based on race, analyzing institutional policy alternatives, and evaluating race equity initiatives), the results of which are available to the public;

• Web sites (that go beyond merely providing information) offering a range of interactive resources such as self-study materials or online courses that educate about race relations or anti-racism;[Footnote 15]

• scholarships and bursaries to further knowledge in the area of race relations, equity, and methods of promoting racial equality;

• educational programs focused on specific areas of concern, such as law enforcement, schools, employment, or housing;

• educating about a specific manifestation of racism (e.g., hate group activity);

• programs organized by members of a community experiencing documented patterns of racial discrimination[Footnote 16] designed to educate the public about the discrimination faced by that particular community, and the equality guarantees in Canadian law which prohibit such discrimination.[Footnote 17]

16. As noted in paragraph 10, proposed programs cannot have as a purpose legislative change or change in government policy, as this would be considered a political, not a charitable purpose. Political activities are acceptable within the limits outlined in the policy called Political Activities, CPS-022.

17. While it is recognized that all research and education are carried out from a particular perspective, they must be non-partisan, reasonably objective, based on factual information, and a well-reasoned position.[Footnote 18] It would be acceptable, for example, to start from the premise that race equity is preferable to discrimination, allowing the educational activities or materials to use an anti-racist framework. However, materials the group knows or ought to know are inaccurate, false, misleading, inflammatory, biased, or disparaging would not be considered educational.

Examples of acceptable wording

18. An acceptable purpose usually consists of a precise statement, followed by a description of how the applicant will carry out that purpose. Often, it will also identify the intended audience (e.g., the public, service providers, etc.).

19. It is a charitable purpose to:

• educate about racial prejudice and discrimination through [list the specific educational programs: e.g., seminars or workshops] intended for the general public;

• organize and implement conferences, workshops [or other specific programs] about institutional and individual forms of racism, discrimination, and stereotyping;

• conduct research, compile data, and disseminate results about racism or ethnoracial disparities to increase understanding and awareness about existing rights of racial minorities.

Wording unlikely to be considered acceptable

20. The first two examples below do not provide enough information—if no elaboration is included that outlines how the objects will be achieved (e.g., a list of charitable activities that further these objects, which is included with the application)—such broad wording would not sufficiently restrict the applicant to charitable purposes. The last example is not accepted as a charitable purpose (see footnote 12). Therefore, the following examples are unlikely to be acceptable wording for a purpose:

• to support programs for the public;

• to carry on activities that are charitable at law;

• to promote international friendship or understanding between states.

Other purposes beneficial to the community

21. Promoting racial equality through positive race relations efforts and eliminating racial discrimination can be considered a charitable purpose in the fourth category of charity, other purposes beneficial to the community.

22. Opposing or lobbying for changes in, or the retention of, the law or policy, or decisions of any level of government is considered political.[Footnote 19] However, it is not a political purpose to ensure conformity with existing laws, as in the case of opposing racial discrimination. As noted by a leading expert on the law of charities, "adherence to the law is the duty of every citizen and is not political."[Footnote 20]

23. Fostering good relations between countries remains an unacceptable object, as this would be a foreign policy matter and considered a political purpose.

24. The types of programs and activities that would be acceptable in this category of charity are listed below:[Footnote 21]

• raising public awareness by disseminating factual, well-reasoned information as part of the group's outreach, which furthers their charitable aims through various means such as brochures and Web sites;[Footnote 22]

• establishing and maintaining peer support groups among [identify an intended group] as well as members of the public to address issues of discrimination and the elimination of racism;

• community resource centres to further inter-cultural co-operation and appreciation of diversity;

• discussion groups open to the public that raise awareness of racism and model alternatives to stereotyping and prejudice;

• cross-cultural exchange programs to promote positive race relations and respect for diversity;

• providing anti-racism awareness activities in conjunction with other programs directed at, for example, youth;

• encouraging compliance with existing anti-discriminatory legislation by using fair and balanced approaches to monitor racial bias and discriminatory practices in a particular field such as the media, policing, or social services;

• participating in a network or coalition made up of organizations supporting anti-racist or positive race relations aims[Footnote 23] in order to share research, informational materials, or expertise[Footnote 24] and act as a resource to groups interested in developing these capacities;

• establishing awards for exemplary anti-racist or race relations programs; or

• memorials to inform the public about the experiences of communities that have faced discrimination.

Public benefit under the other purposes beneficial to the community category[Footnote 25]

25. A charity generally has to offer programs and services that fall within this category to everyone who wishes to access them.[Footnote 26] Where a charity proposes to restrict the beneficiaries in any way, or to focus on a particular group of beneficiaries, the nature of the restriction must be clearly linked to the proposed benefit. [Footnote 27]

26. For example, there are communities that have been the specific target of intolerance or violence, or that have experienced sustained discrimination in Canada. Where there is objective evidence of such forms of injustice, and there are needs unique to a particular community's circumstances, the most effective way to assist those affected, or to mitigate their long-standing disadvantage within the parameters of what is charitable, may well be to restrict or to focus on the common needs of that community.

Facilitator or umbrella organizations

27. It is acceptable to establish a charity whose function is to contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of groups that engage in anti-racist and race relations work (regionally, provincially, or nationally). For more information, see policy statement CPS-026, Guidelines for the Registration of Umbrella Organizations and Title Holding Organizations.

Examples of acceptable wording

28. Acceptable wording for objects in this category might include:

• to promote good race relations by encouraging equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups through [outline specific programs to be offered];

• building peaceful and co-operative networks to promote positive race relations between groups experiencing conflict in Canada resulting from tensions in their countries of origin;

• to ensure existing democratic and human rights are upheld for the ethnic and racial minorities within the Canadian community by providing [describe the intended programs];

• to establish and maintain programs for individuals, groups, and organizations that have experienced discrimination by providing information, counselling, legal services, and follow-up support;

• to develop programs that remove barriers to equal participation for racial and ethnic minorities through [describe the specific program that will be used]; or

• to change racist institutional practices through programs that inform employers about the advantages of hiring qualified racial minority workers.

Wording unlikely to be considered acceptable

29. The examples below do not provide enough detail to ensure the group has exclusively charitable purposes. If no elaboration is included that outlines how the objects will be achieved (e.g., a list of charitable activities that further these objects, which is included with the application), such broad wording would not sufficiently restrict the applicant to charitable purposes.

• to eliminate racism;

• to work toward positive race relations;

• to assist ethnoracial communities in overcoming discriminatory barriers;

• to adopt special programs to address disadvantaged individuals or groups.

---

Appendix A

U.S. Approach

A1. The U.S. Income Tax Regulations[Footnote 28] recognize the following as charitable under the "promotion of social welfare" category:[Footnote 29] reducing neighbourhood tensions, eliminating prejudice and discrimination, defending human and civil rights secured by law, and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

A2. Several examples from the 1968 I.R.S. Revenue Rulings illustrate the kinds of tax-exempt organizations that are devoted to these goals. They include an organization set up to eliminate the discrimination that limited employment opportunities for qualified minority workers;[Footnote 30] an organization that educated the public on the merits of racially integrated neighbourhoods;[Footnote 31] a group that investigated the causes of deterioration in a particular community and informed residents and city officials of possible corrective measures;[Footnote 32] and a group that conducted investigations and research on discrimination against minority groups in housing and public accommodation.[Footnote 33]

U.K. Charity Commission

A3. In the U.K., groups that focus on race relations are no longer disqualified from charitable registration on political grounds. In 1983, the Charity Commission reconsidered the Re Strakosch[Footnote 34] decision in light of social and legislative change, and accepted that "promoting good race relations, endeavouring to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of race and encouraging equality of opportunity between persons of different racial groups were charitable purposes."[Footnote 35]

A4. The Commissioners were of the view that Re Strakosch

did not freeze the appeasement of racial feeling as a political purpose for all time. In England and Wales the question of whether it would be beneficial to the public to appease racial feeling appeared to be no longer a political one as legislation had been passed in an attempt to enforce good race relations and it is unlikely that any substantial body of opinion in England and Wales would not consider the promotion of good race relations to be a purpose beneficial to the community. The fundamental reason why political purposes are not charitable is that the Court has no means of judging whether the proposed change in the law will or will not be for the public benefit. The matter is no longer one for the Court to judge. The nation, through Parliament, has already decided that it is for the public benefit and the matter has ceased to be political.[Footnote 36]

A5. In addition, the Commissioners found analogies to the purposes that had been held by the courts to be charitable, such as the preservation of public order and the prevention of breaches of peace,[Footnote 37] mental and moral improvement,[Footnote 38] and the promotion of equality of women with men.[Footnote 39] As a result, promoting race relations and the elimination of discrimination could become acceptable charitable purposes, analogous to existing subcategories of other purposes beneficial to the community.

Appendix B

B1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been enacted as part of the Constitution, and legislation and public policy have evolved substantially in Canada, since the Re Strakosch decision in 1949. The following are an illustration of this evolution:

• the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,[Footnote 40] in particular section 15 of the Charter, states that "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." It also permits the adoption of special programs to address disadvantaged individuals or groups.

• the Canadian Human Rights Act,[Footnote 41] as well as provincial and territorial human rights acts that prohibit, among other things, discrimination because of race, religion or creed, colour, nationality, ancestry, and place of origin.

• the Canadian Multiculturalism Act,[Footnote 42] which outlines the policy of the Government of Canada as promoting the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins as well as eliminating any barrier to such participation.

• the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act,[Footnote 43] which, by an act of Parliament, set up a charitable trust to facilitate "the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise in order to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society" and which was deemed by Parliament to be a registered charity for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.

• international conventions and proclamations to which Canada has subscribed, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[Footnote 44] (ratified by Canada in 1970), the 1983 proclamation of the Second Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, and the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

B2. The courts have also underscored the importance of anti-discrimination policies and legislation. In a 1990 case involving a charity that limited scholarships to white, Protestant, British subjects, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that racial discrimination "is patently at variance with the democratic principles governing our pluralistic society in which equality rights are constitutionally guaranteed and in which the multicultural heritage of Canadians is to be preserved and enhanced." It was also observed "how far out of keeping the trust now is with prevailing ideas and standards of racial and religious tolerance and equality, and, indeed, how offensive its terms are to fair-minded citizens."[Footnote 45] The trust was therefore seen to violate existing public policy because it was based on notions of sexism, racism, and religious superiority—policy that has clearly shifted since the trust was created in 1923.

---

Footnotes

[Footnote 1]

Subject to appropriate wording, this policy allows existing charities to add purposes that promote racial equality, and allows applicants proposing this and other charitable purposes to be eligible for registration. Applicants that would not otherwise qualify (for example, professional organizations or applicants with a purpose or purposes not recognized as charitable at law) remain ineligible for charitable registration.

[Footnote 2]

These criteria are consistent with the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. They are also listed in the equality guarantee of subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and form the basis of the definition of an identifiable group in section 318(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada-groups that Parliament has deemed vulnerable to hate propaganda attacks.

[Footnote 3]

Taken from the Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/2/Add.1, annex V (1982), adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 1978.

[Footnote 4]

Taken from the Canadian Anti-racism Education and Research Society: Defining Concepts and Terms.

[Footnote 5]

Taken from the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965, General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX). Can. T.S. 1970 (entered into force 4 January 1969).

[Footnote 6]

I.R.S. Regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2).

[Footnote 7]

U.K., Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1983) at para. 20.

[Footnote 8]

The Ontario courts have recognized the promotion of civil rights as charitable in Lewis v. Doerle (1898) 25 O.A.R. 206. This case involved a trust "to promote, aid, and protect citizens of the United States of African decent in the enjoyment of their civil rights".

[Footnote 9]

99 DTC 5034 at 187.

[Footnote 10]

[1949] 1 Ch. 529 (C.A.).

[Footnote 11]

Re Hood, [1931] 1 Ch. 240; Re Price, [1943] Ch. 422; Re South Place Ethical Society, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1565.

[Footnote 12]

According to Hubert Picarda in Law and Practice Relating to Charities (London: Butterworths, 1999) at 171, the U.K. Charity Commissioners "will not admit to the Register organizations for the promotion of international friendship or understanding." He also cites Rowlatt J. in Anglo Swedish Society v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, [1931] 47 T.L.R. 295, who found that "a trust to promote an attitude of mind, a view of one nation by another" was not charitable.

[Footnote 13]

Advocacy is not necessarily a political activity, but it sometimes can be, and applicants are advised to refer to the guidance on political activities (Political Activities, CPS-022) to clarify whether or not their proposed advocacy activity falls within these parameters.

[Footnote 14]

See paragraph 4.

[Footnote 15]

Web sites, like other forms of educational programming, must meet the criteria for the advancement of education category. For more information, see Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes (T4063).

[Footnote 16]

Examples of documentation could include surveys, or complaints reported to police or to human rights authorities.

[Footnote 17]

Applicants are advised to refer to the Guidelines for Registering a Charity - Meeting the Public Benefit Test, CPS-024. for further details, as there may be limitations related to issues of public benefit in the circumstances described by this example.

[Footnote 18]

For definitions of the terms "factual information" and "well-reasoned position", as well as an explanation of education in the charitable sense, as outlined in the Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v. M.N.R 99 DTC 5034, see Appendix I and II of Political Activities, CPS-022.

[Footnote 19]

See the policy Political Activities, CPS-022.

[Footnote 20]

Picarda, supra note 12 at 181.

[Footnote 21]

Some of these examples include an educational component. However, the activities described here may extend beyond what is normally acceptable under the second category, advancement of education. This results in an overlap into the fourth category of charity.

[Footnote 22]

Applicants should familiarize themselves with the limitations on public awareness campaigns set out in the policy called Political Activities, CPS-022, and to ensure they are aware of the distinction between charitable and political activities when planning their programs.

[Footnote 23]

If the focus of such a network shifts to include a political activity (for example, improving legislation), the charity would not be risking revocation provided that, if they choose to participate, they commit only the allowable percentage of resources to the project.

[Footnote 24]

Groups participating in such an arrangement should be aware, however, that the Income Tax Act would prohibit registered charities from subsidizing or funding the activities of other network members if these are not qualified donees.

[Footnote 25]

For more information, see Guidelines for Registering a Charity - Meeting the Public Benefit Test, CPS-024..

[Footnote 26]

However, the courts have determined that purposes and activities restricted to the needs of Aboriginal peoples of Canada are charitable, and meet the public benefit test. Please see Benefits to Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (CPS-012).

[Footnote 27]

For further details about the factors used to determine an eligible restriction, applicants should refer to the proposed policy Guidelines for Registering a Charity - Meeting the Public Benefit Test, CPS-024.. Details related to focussing on a specified group of beneficiaries can also be found in this document.

[Footnote 28]

See in particular I.R.S. Regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2).

[Footnote 29]

Bruce Hopkins, The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, 6th ed. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1992) at 150.

[Footnote 30]

Revenue Ruling 68-70, 1968-1 C.B. 248, online: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr68-070.pdf. "This organization's activities are designed to eliminate prejudice and discrimination in the community by various means. Its lectures and forums are intended to educate potential employers in the advantages of hiring qualified workers without regard to race or creed." They also arranged interviews with potential employers for qualified workers.

[Footnote 31]

Revenue Ruling 68-655, 1968-1 C.B. 248, online: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr68-655.pdf. "By education [sic] the public about integrated housing and conducting intensive neighborhood educational programs to prevent panic selling because of the introduction of a non-white resident into a formerly all-white neighborhood, the organization is striving to eliminate prejudice and discrimination and to lessen neighborhood tensions. By making mortgage loans to families that cannot obtain such loans commercially but that otherwise are considered desirable residents, the organization is trying to break down the barriers of prejudice and gain acceptance of integrated housing within the community. It accomplishes this same objective by purchasing homes and reselling or leasing them on an open occupancy basis to families that will be compatible to a neighborhood and demonstrate the feasibility of integrated communities. By stabilizing the neighborhood, the organization is combatting potential community deterioration."

[Footnote 32]

Revenue Ruling 68-15, 1968-1 C.B. 244, online: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr68-015.pdf. "The work of the organization's committees is charitable since it is designed to contribute directly to lessening neighborhood tensions, eliminating prejudice and discrimination, and combatting community deterioration and juvenile delinquency. The dissemination of information to residents of the community and other interested people of the city at large is educational because the material instructs the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community." The Ruling also established that the group did not engage in propaganda, attempt to influence legislation, or intervene in political campaigns.

[Footnote 33]

Revenue Ruling 68-438, 1968-2 C.B. 209, online: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr68-438.pdf. "The organization's activities of investigating the existence of discrimination and seeking compliance with applicable laws directly contribute to the elimination of prejudice and discrimination, the defense of human and civil rights secured by law, and the lessening of neighborhood tensions. The information that is disseminated to individuals and groups within the community through the organization's publication program and speakers' bureau instructs the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community." It was also noted that the group did not "engage in economic boycotts, reprisals, or picketing," nor did it attempt to influence legislation or disseminate propaganda.

[Footnote 34]

[1949] 1 Ch. 529 (C.A.). Re Strakosch is the basis on which organizations that promote race relations have been refused charitable status. In this decision, the British courts found that the appeasement of racial feelings between different ethnic groups in a community was a political purpose, and therefore not exclusively charitable.

[Footnote 35]

U.K., Report, supra note 7 at para. 20. A later Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1987) at para. 14, confirmed that Inland Revenue accepted the charitable registration of such organizations, in that it did not propose to challenge the decision.

[Footnote 36]

U.K., Report 1983, ibid. at para. 18.

[Footnote 37]

Inland Revenue Commissioners v. City of Glasgow Police Athletic Association, [1953] A.C. 380.

[Footnote 38]

Re Hood, [1931] 1 Ch. 240; Re Price, [1943] Ch. 422; Re South Place Ethical Society, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1565.

[Footnote 39]

Halpin v. Seear, [1976] unreported.

[Footnote 40]

s.7, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.11.

[Footnote 41]

R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6.

[Footnote 42]

R.S.C. 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.).

[Footnote 43]

S.C. 1991, c. 8.

[Footnote 44]

Article 2(2) of this convention appears to impose a positive obligation on signatories, when warranted, to take special measures to ensure the development of certain racial groups: "States Parties shall, when the circumstances so warrant, take, in the social, economic, cultural and other fields...special and concrete measures to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups...for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights...."

[Footnote 45]

Canada Trust Co. v. Ontario Human Rights Commission (1990), 69 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (Ont. C.A.) at 495.