While tax advantages flow from having charitable status, agitating for political change does not fit the legal definition of a charity – as Greenpeace has found to its cost.
The Charities Commission denied Greenpeace registration as a charity saying one of the Society’s aims, to achieve disarmament, together with its explicit approval of direct non-violent protest action amounts to political activity.
Because charities enjoy an indirect taxpayer subsidy by receiving their income tax free, the courts have carefully circumscribed who might be treated at law as a charity.
The High Court ruled that over one hundred years of case law defining what is a “charity” was not altered by the Charities Act 2005. Earlier case law decided that any organisation seeking to achieve a political object is not a charity. An educational programme promoting peace could be charitable, but a programme supporting pacifism would not. Peace can be generally preferred to war, but not peace at any price.
Promotion of disarmament and peace are amongst Greenpeace’s primary objectives. The High Court ruled that while these two objectives are worthy pursuits, they have historically been considered political and “not charitable”.
The Court said there is a distinction between education (encouraging rationale debate) which is charitable, and advocacy (promoting a political result) which is not charitable.
The objectives of Greenpeace coupled with its support of protest action amounts to advocacy, not education.
Re Greenpeace – High Court (06.05.11)
05.11.002