Along with all of the other issues related to the sketchy "Democracy Fund" claiming to be able to dispense charitable tax receipts for all that money being shoved into Ezra Levant's "Fight the Fines" campaign, it appears that, legally speaking, TDF might be in a bit of a sticky situation regarding their own advertised mandate. Let me explain.
At the moment, as we all know, TDF is raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars to supply legal representation to -- in Ezra's own words -- thousands of individual defendants who have been fined for one thing or another related to masks and vaccines and whatnot. And all that sounds just ducky except for one thing -- that is most emphatically not part of TDF's mandate. Here, let me reproduce with highlighting precisely what you see when you visit TDF's web page:
Note well the emphasis, not on run-of-the-mill litigation, but on the much more specific strategic litigation. And what is the difference, you ask? I'm glad you asked.
It takes very little Googling to find a basic definition of strategic litigation [emphasis added]:
Strategic litigation, sometimes also called impact litigation, involves selecting and bringing a case to the courtroom with the goal of creating broader changes in society. People who bring strategic litigation want to use the law to leave a lasting mark beyond just winning the matter at hand. This means that strategic litigation cases are as much concerned with the effects that they will have on larger populations and governments as they are with the end result of the cases themselves.
Note well the emphasis on "a case" -- singular -- whose purpose is clearly to set a precedent for a much larger principle, not simply to win an individual case. In case there is any confusion, another definition found online really drives this home [again, emphasis added]:
Strategic litigation is the identification and pursuit of legal cases as part of a strategy to promote human rights. It focuses on an individual case in order to bring about broader social change.
And just so you appreciate what is so special about this type of litigation, here is the difference between strategic litigation and normal legal services [more emphasis]:
It is, however, important to note that strategic litigation is very different from many more traditional ideas of legal services. Traditional legal service organisations offer valuable services to individual clients and work diligently to represent and advise those clients in whatever matters they may bring through the door. But because traditional legal services are client-centred and limited by the resources of the providing organisation, there is often no opportunity to look at cases in the bigger picture. Strategic litigation, on the other hand, is focused on changing policies and broader patterns of behaviour. Because of this, strategic litigation is not designed to provide the best services to the largest number of people possible as traditional legal services would.
Are we good here? Do we now all understand that "strategic litigation" is a very different beast from normal legal services, in that it focuses on a single (or very small number of) cases to act as a precedent for social change? Because that is most emphatically not what is happening with Rebel News' "Fight the Fines" campaign, is it?
No, it's not, given the constant crowing by Ezra Levant and the rest of his smurfettes bragging about how they are currently representing "thousands" of defendants and their trivial, unrelated several-hundred-dollar fines. By Ezra's own admission, all of the donated money is going to represent as many minor defendants as he can sign up -- in the thousands -- which, quite simply, is not even remotely compatible with The Democracy Fund's promised mandate of ...
In short, whatever Ezra Levant and The Democracy Fund are doing when they sign up thousands of individual clients to fight their minor lockdown-related fines, it absolutely does not fall under the aegis of "strategic litigation," and someone should point this out to the CRA.
I'm just suggesting.
P.S. We're not done with The Democracy Fund. Not even close.
7 comments:
That's actually an important distinction. If memory serves (and it's been a while), the CRA takes a special interest in strategic litigation, because its main purpose is not just to win an individual case. Instead, its goal is to further social justice or change public policy so that the community and society at large will benefit. That's why those sorts of charities can get registered to give out tax receipts.
On the other hand, the CRA doesn't give a shit if your charity is "give me money so I can fight my speeding ticket." There's not much chance they're going to register you for something like that since it has no benefit outside of your not paying your speeding ticket.
It's a big deal that The Democracy Fund brags about its mandate of "strategic litigation" when it's so obvious that's not what they're doing. That has a very good chance of getting them in trouble when filing time comes around, and they have to explain why they put millions of dollars into fighting thousands of unrelated and individual fines that represent absolutely no general benefit to anyone other than those individuals.
How do you report this to the CRA?
I think that's why the Rebel shifted gears a few weeks ago. If you sift through the bewildering array of fundraising campaigns they're running, you'll note that "Fight the Fines" has disappeared. The focus of that campaign, as you know, was funneling money to Ezra's hand-picked legal buddies to contest fines and charges arising from public health violations. But that's pretty slim pickings: basically it amounted to lawyers pointing out petty procedural violations in the issuance of tickets. Every dismissal like that was, of course, touted by the Rebel as a massive victory for freedom: in fact, despite the Rebel's boasting, none of their court "victories" had anything to do with the legality or constitutionality of the Public Health measures the Rebel objects to.
However, there's no real money to made from that - it's like bottom feeding attorneys eking out a living appealing parking tickets.
So over the last weeks the Rebel has rebranded its campaign as , refocusing on what is most definitely strategic litigation. It's now called "Fight Vaccine Passports",and their goal is to challenge the legality and constitutionality of these measures. They're looking for 20 cases, and requesting a million bucks for "...the best lawyers, who know the law, and the constitution, and how to strategically fight this, and to fight it quickly, with the best chance of winning and setting a precedent and rolling back these vaccine passports."
No idea what's happened to the "thousands" of cases Ezra claimed to be helping under last year's shill, "Fight the Fines", but I'm sure they're happy to be abandoned for the greater good.
Anon @12:28 PM: I was just about to put together another post that scarily mirrors what you just wrote. The sudden turnabout from thousands of idiotic, unrelated fines to the focus on strategic legislation with a small number of clients suggests someone at Rebel or TDF realized what sort of trouble they were inviting and decided to shift gears in a hurry.
I can see a problem with that shift of tactic just from the quotes. "the best lawyers, who know the law, and the constitution" would know the whole idea is a pile of bullshit and wouldn't sign on.
PLG, the Rebel is already up to their eyeballs with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, which makes its living pursuing meaningless "constitutional challenges" (which they almost inevitably lose) through the courts. The point is not for these shysters to "win": it's to raised funds for appeal after appeal. It keeps bread on their table and provides a string of "events" to keep the issue in the public eye.
Anonymous--I know, I know, I was just amusing myself with the absurdity of their claims.
Post a Comment