More Humpty Dumpty from the Commission.

Words mean just what they want them to mean.

I have just recievd a press release from an outfit calling themselves CEEweb for Biodiversity. This, one of over 3000 Para Governmental Organisations that prefers to be called an NGO is keen on Wilderness, which it helpfully defines as,

The term ‘wilderness’ refers to large, undisturbed natural areas. These places are governed by natural processes without human intervention, and offer sanctuaries for wild plants and animals. But that’s only one of the special things about wilderness. The other one is purely emotional: people who are lucky enough to visit such areas, often sense a unique experience of spiritual quality which might change their basic attitude to nature, to mankind, and sometimes even to themselves..

All well and good. Not a lot of that around I would have thought, and wide open to the tradgedy of the commons, but OK.

But what do they really mean? Well of course they mean that areas defined as wilderness should be managed, just not by the nations in which they happen to be, but by the EU itself under the Natura 2000 program.

This could be achieved through the development of clear guidance for Member States on non-intervention management of Natura 2000 sites by the European Commission.

Given successful promotion and implementation of these guidelines, wilderness areas have the strong potential to become a well integrated and important component of European protected areas network and to be integral for climate change adaptation.

Oh yes and did you see that little climate change reference? All part of a bigger project you see.

It must be an awful lot.

Bob Spink asked a pertinant question of the Home Office a couple of days ago,

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what grants his Department made to charitable organisations in each of the last five years.

The Minister's answer is rather chilling,

Mr. Woolas: The Department's funding of charities can not be provided, without incurring disproportionate cost.

Note that this is just for one department, and they are not prepared to admit to the level of government involvement in the so called third sector. Across government as a whole the numbers must be astonomic.

So not only are they corrupt themselves, but this points to a wholesale corruption of the voluntary or NGO sector, or as I prefer to call them the Para-Governmental sector

Good for the Goose

The news that is today reported by Third Sector that the Charities Commission has fired a shot over the bows of 16 Muslim organisations for supporting Ken Livingston has eery echoes of what will be happening in the Palace of Westminster over the next few weeks.

The 16 Charities were amongst 63 Muslim organisations that signed an open letter on the Guardian's Comment is Free website on the 3rd January.

According to the Charities Commission,

“The British Muslim Initiative has assured us that the individuals who signed the letter did so as private individuals rather than representing the charities’ views. The initiative has now made this clear on its website, and we have written to the charities involved to advise them on the type of political activity a charity can be involved in.”

Of course given the change in the law governing charities and political affiliation the fact that the Government has made it very clear that its key defence of the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is that much of the NGO world support them is of great relevance.

As North points out on EU Referendum (and here) most of these NGO's are receiving significant funding from The Government and the EU, making them rather more Para than Non Governmental organisations.

"These are all part of this vast network of influence, all buying into the "project". And having been nurtured by the EU, the EU is calling in its marker, expecting them to spring forward to help the British government defend the new treaty, pretending to be independent "third-party support".

It is difficult to believe how far the EU has infiltrated our "civil society" until you see the evidence for yourself. So deep is the rot though that, whenever an organisation stands up in support of the EU, you can bet that, somewhere – and not very deep down - EU money is talking".

Is it too cynical to suggest that these law changes, taking place as they did after the No votes in France and Holland were in part driven by the desire to recruit the support of the 'Third Sector' in the then looming and now present debate over Europe?