Funding for pro-father and pro-family activism

Roger wrote:

Hello, I am a father who’s been through the family courts and won. It took 2 years but I have 100% custody of my daughter and am now looking to get more involved. I want to start a faith based non-profit organization to work solely with father’s in trying to keep marriages together and if they do split to make sure that father has a place in his child’s life. I am contacting you to see if you are a non-profit and if so what sources of funding are you receiving. I’m attempting to get a US government grant but there really is nothing in the area of father’s. Any assistance you could give would be much appreciated. Thank You.

Hello Roger,

Thanks for writing.

Yes, we are a non-profit organization, with me being the researcher and writer, and with my wife being the editor-in-chief (and with contributions by many writers from all over the world). We don’t have government approval for being non-profit, but that is not necessary, as there are no profits, only expenses.

We network nationally and internationally with pro-family- and pro-fathers-rights activists and have been doing that since 1988, as soon as my recovery from the financial devastation caused by my separation and divorce in 1975 made it barely affordable to purchase a PC and my first modem (an external one). The costs of that were close to $4,000 (employer-funded purchase plan with a low-interest loan) and exceeded by a factor of four what we could afford to spend on groceries that year for a family of three, but then we lived on our farm. That made it possible to avoid starvation, but things were very tight, financially.

We have not been overwhelmed with donations, but there were some. I believe that the grand-total in donations over the years adds up to about $27. Mind you, it would not be practical to ask for donations from an audience whose members are largely at the edge of bankruptcy.

There is no government funding available for the cause of fathers rights. The following quote explains the government’s stand on funding for such things.

…Hedy Fry, secretary of state of Status of Women Canada, said in an interview that men will have to look elsewhere unless they want to study issues related to women.
Despite a quarter century of federal financial support, she said, Canadian women are still not on “a level playing field” with men.
“Hopefully there will come a time,” she said, “when we won’t have need for equality programs for women because men and women will be competing on a level playing field. Traditionally, 51 per cent of our resources [women] have not had the same opportunity as the 49 per cent [men] have had.” “If there is a men’s group,” she added, “or a Martian group, that comes and says, “we agree with you, and we want to work in our community to change this, . . . if the project was a good one we would fund them….” …Status of Women Canada has an annual budget of $17 million. About $9 million goes towards departmental costs and the rest is given in grants to women’s groups or programs.

quoted in “WOMEN’S GROUP WON’T SHARE FUNDING
by Chris Cobb in the Ottawa Citizen

We live in the province of Alberta, in Canada. Alberta has about 3.2 million residents and spends in the order of $13 million a year on battered women’s shelters and other women’s issues. Then there is also federal funding for women’s issues, more than $400 million a year in all of Canada. In contrast, there is not a single dollar in provincial or federal funding for men’s issues. That is very similar to how things are in the US, where “for every $1,000 spent to deal with the effects of family disintegration, only $1 is spent to prevent that disintegration.” (Source: The Effects of Divorce on America)

You may wish to contact individual fathers rights organizations in the US to inquire of them as to whether any of them receive any funding and how they went about getting it. Select contact details from this directory: Men’s And Women’s Resources — By State.

I have to warn you, though. If and when the unlikely happens and funding is obtained, it is very easy to become to depend on that source of income. It is even easier to lose that source of income and have the funding cut off. That doesn’t just apply to funding but also to the status of being a non-profit organization. Any non-profit organization with income from private sources can be (and frequently has been) brought to its knees by being forced to pay taxes after its non-profit status has become revoked when politically incorrect statements were made or issued, often even when such statements were made privately.

Government-provided funding brings obligations; and restrictions on freedom of speech are some of them. Independence from government funding brings about a greater extent of freedom of speech, although in Canada that may come to naught when anyone launches a complaint against a given organization or individual. The costs of hearings by Canada’s human rights tribunals (free to complainants but expensive for alleged violators of Canada’s hate-crime laws – whether guilty or not) begin at about $65,000, can run up to many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and can drag on for years.

In their 31 years of existence, the Canadian Human Rights Commissions never once found for the defendants in hate-crime allegations. The Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled a few years ago against the Report Newsmagazine (now defunct). The Report Newsmagazine responded as follows:

Moving from the ridiculous to the dangerous, you state that principles of human rights are “basic law,” and are not “tentative notions or vague public policy.” So say you. This too amounts to an arbitrary and false assertion. As you know, the guidance we got from the Court of Queen’s Bench listed no fewer than 10 factors, most of them amounting to subjective guesswork, to be weighed singly and in aggregate, before someone publishes a controversial statement about any of the groups you people purport to protect.

These 10 factors are: “content of the communication,” “tone,” “image conveyed, including use of quotations or reference sources,” “vulnerability of the [described] group,” “the degree to which the expression reinforces stereotypes,” “the circumstances surrounding the message, including whether the messages appeal to well publicized issues,” “the medium used to convey the message,” “the circulation of the publication,” “the credibility to be accorded to the communication,” and “the context of the publication, or for example whether it is part of a debate, or is presented as news, or as a purportedly authoritative analysis.”

In conclusion, you explain that an offence occurs when a complainant in one of your client classes feels discriminated against. It is not excused by the intention of the person making the statement, nor (we are left to deduce) if the facts being complained about are true, or if the beliefs being expressed are sincerely held. Intent doesn’t matter, beliefs don’t matter, facts don’t matter; if someone on your protected species list feels discriminated against in’ public discourse, the public discourse must stop. The full implications of this legal absurdity boggle the mind.

From: Letter from the Publisher of The Report

Our reply to the Alberta Human Rights Commission

I am curious about your success in court. Did you hire a lawyer or did you represent yourself? How much did you have to shell out in lawyer fees, fees for expert witnesses and court costs? Is your ex-wife paying child support? If so, how much?

Do you have website going? Will you stay involved with pro-fathers activism if you cannot obtain funding from private or government sources?

All the best,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

This entry was posted in Censorship, Education, Family, Feminism, Men's Issues. Bookmark the permalink.