Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Monday May 25 2015, @07:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the soviet-russia-ngo's-you dept.

Multiple news outlets have reported that Russia has passed a law allowing Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to be banned if undesirable.

According to the story on Euronews:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed into law a bill which will allow foreign organisations to be banned from operating in the country.

The new law will give authorities the right to prosecute non-governmental organisations if considered "undesirable" or a threat to national security.

From the CNN story:

Tanya Lokshina, Russia program director for Human Rights Watch, said the new law had "the potential to severely damage our work in Russia," and was a cause for grave concern for all international groups operating in the country.

Nevertheless, she said she did not believe the law was aimed at international organizations like hers. Instead, she said, it was aimed at Russians who might cooperate with, or support, international organizations.

NGOs are not always beloved around the world and have been accused of doing more harm than good. What is the correct role for NGOs in the world?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Monday May 25 2015, @08:23PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @08:23PM (#187722)

    Note that Russia isn't quite Haiti. The links explain the serious issue of trickle down imperialism and all that. And yes implementing the prime directive and pretending they don't exist until they show us a working warp drive (fission reactor?) is probably the best strategy. But lets face it, most of the NGOs in russia are paid for by US interests to give Putin a bunch of hassle and have nothing to do with feeding famine victims in Africa in the article links.

    Mostly its anti-corruption. Russia has no shortage of corruption and closing a conduit of cash from foreign governments just makes practical sense. There's also a lot of pouting that can't really be taken seriously.

    Lets look at a typical example of pouting that can't be taken seriously. Levada gets about 2% of its money from foreign governments but they claim they'd rather pout and take their ball and go home than simply chop off 2% of their budget and go 100% domestic funding, obviously there's something they need to cover up and keep quiet such that they're willing to give up on their mission with 98% of their budget. My guess is there's documentation proving that 2% or so of their press releases were simply purchased from abroad. This doesn't mean they totally suck, I mean 98% of what they do might be perfectly good. Just the crooks at the top have no interest in going to jail for their ... 2% of misdeeds, or whatever you want to call it, so pout and quit after a toddler age tantrum. Or the crooks at the top are outright agents and the 98% of their work was just some cover they don't give a F about one way or another, their true allegiance was to the CIA guys who paid their bills for the 2% of stuff they did at CIA's command so logically once thats cut off, pout, tantrum, quit, go home is the only logical outcome. Another disreputable explanation for not chopping off funding is maybe they're 100% CIA owned and they really mean 2% foreign funded legitimately and 98% CIA funded via money laundering and they don't figure they can continue to get away with money laundering.

    I can understand the propaganda, in a sense. There's no possible way this is bad for Russia or good for the USA, so the usual boot lickers are supporting us, as they were paid to do. But you gotta acknowledge it that way, not some ridiculous cold war era foolishness about them being the bad guys and us being the white knights fighting for good. Show a little more respect for your enemy, they're just the fighters on the other side, not some kind of subhuman animals. We'd do the same thing if Russians were funneling money into our internal propaganda generators.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Monday May 25 2015, @09:59PM

      by mtrycz (60) on Monday May 25 2015, @09:59PM (#187750)

      You're overlooking some 150M people living in Russia, and what this new shit law means to *them*. Yo, immagine if shit like that passed in the US or EU: the government can ban ongs reputed "undesirable". What would that mean for people living in the US/EU? Why should it be different for the poeple living in Russia?

      I'm seriously concerned with recent events in Russia, gay laws, political assassintations, now this.

      Show a little more respect for your enemy

      Who's your enemy?

      --
      In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Monday May 25 2015, @11:38PM

        by tftp (806) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:38PM (#187780) Homepage

        Yo, immagine if shit like that passed in the US or EU: the government can ban ongs reputed "undesirable". What would that mean for people living in the US/EU?

        You are asking an interesting question. However you are not providing an answer. Why?

        Here is my answer: the people living in the US would not care one bit. The US Government is regularly declaring this or that organization as "supporting terrorism" and thus making their activities within the country (and, of course, everywhere else in the "free world") illegal. For example [charityandsecurity.org]:

        On Oct. 13, 2004 the Treasury Department designated the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARAUSA), along with five senior officials from the organization, as supporters of terrorism. Treasury said IARA-USA was an affiliate of the Islamic African Relief Agency, a Sudanese charity suspected of supporting al Qaeda. IARA-USA’s attorney, Shereef Akeel, argued that the U.S. charity was a separate and independent organization from IARA-Sudan, and was “trying to combat terrorism.” IARA-USA had its own board of directors, administrative structure, executive decision making process, and legal and financial accountability obligations.

        I haven't heard of any widespread riots or other expressions of discontent from the population about this particular ruling. Note that they were closed on suspicion - not on any proven fact, even though facts that clear the charity were provided. The reason for that is that NGOs are acting on behalf of a tiny percentage of the population, and their disappearance is entirely missed by everyone except 100 or 200 people that cared about it.

        In other words, the pot is again calling the kettle black. Note that some measure of blackness is expected here from any government. For some reasons governments (and, by extension, societies that elected the officials) do not want to enable troublemakers. This is a delicate balance between free speech and suppression of dangerous speech. Can speech be dangerous? Russians don't need to point to Germany of 1930's - they have their own events of 1905 and 1917 that were enabled and organized just by carefully crafted speech. Do they want another batch of revolutionaries in power? Hell no.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 25 2015, @11:52PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:52PM (#187784) Journal

          HRW is covert operation arm of US Dept of State.

          This wasn't always true - but like Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders, the org has been largely absorbed by the Borg collective.

          So called "Human Rights" Watch urged bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

          Get this straight: Military airstrikes ARE NEVER "humanitarian".

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday May 25 2015, @11:53PM

            by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:53PM (#187785) Journal

            Some mapping of officials and resumes:
            http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html [nl.net]

            --
            You're betting on the pantomime horse...
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:13AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:13AM (#187828)

            > So called "Human Rights" Watch urged bombing of civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

            Dude. You can't just say something like that and leave it uncited. Googling it doesn't pull up anything. In fact the opposite, like:

            THE CRISIS IN KOSOVO [hrw.org]
            "Even if one could justify legal attacks on civilian radio and television, there does not appear to be any justification for attacking urban studios, as opposed to transmitters."

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:44PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:44PM (#188014) Journal

              I'm almost certain the grandparent was taking some "Genocide is bad and should be stopped" plea as if it were endorsement of the specific tactics used by the later UN intervention.

              Because the things going down in Kosovo were exactly the kind of human rights violations the organization would be opposed to, nominally.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:31PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:31PM (#188005)

            Get this straight: Military airstrikes ARE NEVER "humanitarian".

            Of course they are! Since only shit holes are bombed, they put people out of their misery. win-win!

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:16AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:16AM (#187865) Journal

          Russians don't need to point to Germany of 1930's - they have their own events of 1905 and 1917 that were enabled and organized just by carefully crafted speech.

          None of those incidents were caused by carefully crafted speech. They were caused by deep problems and divisions in the societies. Considerable effort was also put forth to suppress that carefully crafted speech.

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:17AM

            by tftp (806) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:17AM (#187876) Homepage

            None of those incidents were caused by carefully crafted speech. They were caused by deep problems and divisions in the societies.

            A revolution is not possible without an organized leadership - a.k.a. the party. The party is created and maintained by speech. A party, really, is nothing but speech that, in the end, resolves into actions of party members.

            Considerable effort was also put forth to suppress that carefully crafted speech

            A half-hearted effort at best. Communists never had a difficulty with printing and distributing their newspapers. Arrested revolutionaries were not executed on the spot by a bloody tyrant, but sent to a comfortable exile in Siberla by an educated, liberal and indecisive Czar. Those revolutionaries quickly ended up in Switzerland and UK, after finishing their terms (Lenin got three years of exile, Trotsky - four) or by escaping (in 1907 Trotsky was convicted to another exile, but escaped before even arriving there.)

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:52PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:52PM (#188039) Journal

              A revolution is not possible without an organized leadership - a.k.a. the party. The party is created and maintained by speech. A party, really, is nothing but speech that, in the end, resolves into actions of party members.

              Unless, of course, it isn't. And as you noted, the governments in question turned out to just not be competent enough to suppress speech to the degree required. Russia is in that boat now. There's no way they' can muster the police state of the Soviet era. The above "half-hearted" suppression of speech will IMHO organize rival power groups more just as it did in those historical instances you mention. I think Putin would be better off planning his coming retirement.

              • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:34PM

                by tftp (806) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:34PM (#188067) Homepage

                It should be remembered that the "opposition" is noisy, but in terms of voters they do not represent a significant challenge to Putin's party. In all recent elections they were not on the radar [wikipedia.org]. In the US terms, one Al Sharpton can gather a crowd, but it doesn't mean that his crowd is capable of overturning the existing political duopoly. Just as in case of Russia, Sharpton's audience has neither the numbers nor the influence to advance their candidate. (They don't even have one; nor "they" plan to have one, since "they" is no more permanent than a cloud in the sky.)

                The reason why Putin is popular among voters is extremely simple. He represents common sense and stability. In US terms he is conservative. He does not intend to "radically transform" Russia. The opposition wants that transformation - for their own purpose. That's why they have no support outside of a crowd of intelligentsia in one public square in Moscow. The opposition's ideal is Kiev-style Maidan, where power was grabbed with use of force, by a minority, and only in a few key cities. It is easy to see why Russians are not all that enthused about the opposition's plans. The Putin's government is strong enough to prevent the violence, and its actions will be supported by the majority. This is why the opposition is treading lightly. It's all fun and games to oppose the government; but it's very dangerous to oppose the people.

                • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:33PM

                  by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:33PM (#188257)

                  Elections popularity also depends on how you count voters. Especially if you are in power already.

                  --
                  Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
                  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:29PM

                    by tftp (806) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:29PM (#188283) Homepage

                    Sure. But it's awfully hard to make 80% out of 20%. Besides, polls are conducted all the time [fom.ru]. They show the same picture.

                    • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:09PM

                      by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:09PM (#188310)

                      I've heard we are pretty good at that*. Not sure about actual numbers, though. And polls, “ФОМнибус“ is, apparently, that organization whose primary customer(?) is presidential administration, so I'm not sure you should give them much credit.

                      * … considering nobody else is going to have any chance to disprove a thing. Our courts are just and fairest of them all, after all.

                      --
                      Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:45AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:45AM (#188391) Journal

                      Sure. But it's awfully hard to make 80% out of 20%.

                      You just did by putting the two in the same sentence.

                      Besides, polls are conducted all the time.

                      If you can throw an election, you can throw a poll with even less difficulty.

                      • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:15AM

                        by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:15AM (#188402) Homepage

                        If you can throw an election, you can throw a poll with even less difficulty.

                        There are many polling companies [narod.ru]. But, of course, it is also A-OK to think that they all conspired to twist the true results of their research :-) Problems begin only when politicians start developing foreign policy that is based on their personal delusions.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:42AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:42AM (#188416) Journal

                          There are many polling companies. But, of course, it is also A-OK to think that they all conspired to twist the true results of their research :-)

                          They don't have conspire. Only Putin has to conspire. And need I point out that he has the power to do that?

                          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:05AM

                            by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:05AM (#188427) Homepage

                            They don't have conspire. Only Putin has to conspire. And need I point out that he has the power to do that?

                            No, lacking magic he cannot do that. Nobody can convince the whole country that black is white and white is black. Too much information is transferred horizontally, between peers. Support of Putin's policies is real. And besides, why not? He is a reasonably good manager. Why would the citizens want him removed? Was he forced to make some unpopular decision while I wasn't watching? I don't recall anything significant. Right now he is arranging the domestic manufacturing boom [lenta.ru], thanks to EU that decided to remove their competing presence from Russian markets. (Putin wouldn't be able to do that because of WTO rules; but if the competitor voluntarily chooses to not compete, there is no foul.)

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:53AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:53AM (#188440) Journal

                              No, lacking magic he cannot do that. Nobody can convince the whole country that black is white and white is black.

                              The Soviets didn't have any trouble doing that. And Putin is KGB.

                              • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:11AM

                                by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @04:11AM (#188449) Homepage

                                The Soviets didn't have any trouble doing that. And Putin is KGB.

                                KGB was never in the propaganda business. But that doesn't really matter because the statement

                                The Soviets didn't have any trouble doing that

                                is not correct. As matter of fact, the complete failure of Communist propaganda was one of key reasons for decay of USSR and its consequent disintegration. People lost hope in Communism; comparison with Capitalism was not in favor of the former. CPSU could not fight that, and people refused to fight for Communism. They instead chose to fight for capitalism when Gorbachev gave them the chance.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Geotti on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:22AM

        by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:22AM (#187807) Journal

        I'm seriously concerned with recent events in Russia, gay laws, political assassintations, now this.

        You what? What do you know about life in Russia, seriously? I'm not aiming to be offensive to you, but I'm sick of hearing these arguments over and over.

        The "gay laws" you are referring to are (currently) little more than a populistic PR gag: you're forbidden to "promote homosexuality" to minors. Just as you're forbidden to promote heterosexual intercourse to them. Yes, there's a difference, and yes it is a bit disturbing viewing this from the liberal "western" position, but this is nothing like it's painted in the media.

        Let me get this straight: I've got quite a few gay friends in Moscow and St. Petersburg (around a dozen to be more specific) and nothing changed for them there. There are just as many gay parties as before and they are behaving in the same way they always did. (This, unfortunately, is not as open as in Amsterdam or Berlin, but that would require a shift in the mentality of the general population, which is more conservative regarding such things.)

        Regarding political assassinations, you must be referring to Politkovskaya? Well that's how the FSB deals with whistleblowers over there. Not a whole lot worse than incarcerating them or chasing them all over the world, ain't it?
        If you're referring to Nemtsov, then you should look closer at his biography: there's several reasons why he could have been murdered and few of them would be political. His murder was a prime opportunity for the media to jump on, however.
        Also the opposition is generally weak in Russia, he certainly was not dangerous to the establishment.
        Litvinenko... Not sure about that one.

        Now, regarding NGOs, hmm.. Let's see, how about responding to the (uni-lateral) sanction policy of the US & EU, how about averting attempts at instigating a color revolution like what happened in Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, ...? Oh, and please, think of national security (again, as VLM pointed out)!

        So nothing all that different from Europe and the US all the same fucking scary as everywhere else unfortunately. Rights being trampled on and curtailed, corporate influence expanding, corruption...
        Really, nothing new. Now stop being "seriously concerned with recent events in Russia" and start being seriously concerned with the whole world. Think of the children dammit! [Insert a recent caricature seen on 9gag, where an agent comes in a store and is offered to have his rights-limiting legislation wrapped in anti-terror or children gift wrap.]

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:58AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:58AM (#187816) Journal

          Regarding political assassinations, you must be referring to Politkovskaya? Well that's how the FSB deals with whistleblowers over there. Not a whole lot worse than incarcerating them or chasing them all over the world, ain't it?

          Given that the chase is expected to be expensive, one may say the Russian govt has better care of their citizens' taxes. But, besides being cynical to the extreme (aren't all politicians so, spin-doctoring and what not?) that would be streching the reality quite a lot in the context of the endemic corruption in Russia.
          (you know? You may be right, except that in other parts of the world they may be doing a better job in covering their tracks... or justifying their corruption by legislation).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:38PM

          by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:38PM (#188260)

          This is just another law with selective enforcement. Which is still a bad thing even if on a grand scheme of things it doesn't seem that large.

          --
          Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
          • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:55PM

            by Geotti (1146) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:55PM (#188274) Journal

            This is just another law with selective enforcement. Which is still a bad thing

            True. My point was that this is sadly happening everywhere...

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:21AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:21AM (#187832) Journal

        You're overlocking a small detail

        FTFY 😉

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:42PM

          by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:42PM (#188185)

          You're overclocking a small detail

          --
          "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:09AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:09AM (#187846) Journal

      We'd do the same thing if Russians were funneling money into our internal propaganda generators.

      You do realize that the USSR did that to the US for nearly its entire existence? The US ended up doing nothing most of the time. And when it did do something, like McCarthy era red baiting, it turned out to be terrible.

      Further, if you truly don't like the CIA running your show, then do something about it - like think for yourself.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 25 2015, @08:53PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @08:53PM (#187729) Journal

    For the most part, I think it's alright. Sure, it's open for a lot of potential abuse, but a sovereign nation has the power and the authority to limit activities that it deems harmful.

    Some of those NGO's are full of moonbats anyway. No, I'm not going to get into a discussion, trying to determine which NGO's are deplorable, and which are admirable. Some of the are bat-fuck crazy, some are just great, but none of them put Russia's interests ahead of so-called global interests. If Russia feels the need to boot some of them out of the country, more power to them.

    I think we should follow their example. We could start with booting CAIR out of the US.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:24PM (#187738)

      > No, I'm not going to get into a discussion,
      > none of them put Russia's interests ahead of so-called global interests

      Whoever modded you troll was right.

      • (Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 25 2015, @09:50PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @09:50PM (#187747) Journal

        I'm something of a nationalist. Many Russians are nationalists. I can respect them for that.

        So - some Muslim or Muslim sympathizer mods me a troll? I should be concerned? Sorry - I'm not the least bit concerned. If my karma should fall to negative numbers because I voice my honest opinion, then so be it. I can't stand the slimy, sleazy feeling I get when I even contemplate Muslims instituting Sharia Law in the US. Women as property, gays to be hanged or beheaded, and apostates hunted down like dogs - that is what Islam is all about.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @10:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @10:02PM (#187752)

          > So - some Muslim or Muslim sympathizer mods me a troll?

          Wow. Someone thinks that maybe not ALL NGOs in Russia are opposed to Russian interests. Must be a muslim!

          Your paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @11:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @11:29PM (#187776)

          I'm something of a nationalist. Many Russians are nationalists. I can respect them for that.

          Here we were just wondering if Runaway was in prison. Now we find out he's a Russian nationalist! Still could be in a Russian prison. What was that about Chechens? Or maybe he is currently operating in the Eastern Ukraine? At least on honest Troll.

        • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:41PM

          by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:41PM (#188263)

          Respecting nationalism is like respecting shit. You can do it, but why would you? :}

          --
          Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:35PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:35PM (#188331) Journal

            Some of us stand for something. The rest of you will fall for anything. I suppose you support globalization - I do not.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday May 25 2015, @09:28PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @09:28PM (#187739)

      I think we should follow their example. We could start with booting CAIR out of the US.

      Why not the UN? Its even more messed up and pointless.

      For a good laugh look who's recently trying to win leadership of the human rights council. The biggest problem the UN has is journalist headlines about it often look like they came from the Onion. It really is that bad.

      The UN parodies itself so well that no one else needs to put in the effort. Flush it.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 25 2015, @09:46PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @09:46PM (#187744) Journal

        I can go along with booting the UN. In recent decades, it seems all they do is attack the US. All the ills of the world were caused by the US and the rest of the industrialized western nations. Just boot their dumb asses to some place like the Congo.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday May 25 2015, @10:02PM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @10:02PM (#187753) Journal

        I think we should follow their example. We could start with booting CAIR out of the US.

        Why not the UN? Its even more messed up and pointless.

        If the "messed up and pointless" is the criterion for booting out, why not start with the US govt?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @11:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @11:32PM (#187779)

          I think we should follow their example. We could start with booting CAIR out of the US.

          Why not the UN? Its even more messed up and pointless.

          If the "messed up and pointless" is the criterion for booting out, why not start with the US govt?

          And if that seriously is the criteria (plural), then start with the US citizens are that appoint said government!!

          USA out of North America!!

  • (Score: 1) by chucky on Monday May 25 2015, @08:57PM

    by chucky (3309) on Monday May 25 2015, @08:57PM (#187730)

    What is the correct role for NGOs in the world? Fill the cracks and do what your government sucks at, even go ask the government to pay your bills from public funds. But once you do politics, you are a political party, not an NGO.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 25 2015, @09:47PM (#187745)

      You can be political without running for office.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Monday May 25 2015, @09:00PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Monday May 25 2015, @09:00PM (#187733)

    What is the correct role for NGOs in the world?

    Kinda lame question. Which NGOs? There is a wide variation even if most are cut from the same Progressive, NWO, do gooder Internationalist cloth.

    Personally I think the NGO community tries to be too many things at once, mostly for nefarious purpose. They are feeding the hungry... and fomenting revolutionary social change when the public eye is off. They are promoting international understanding... so long as they define it as bringing everyone to agree with them. And so on. Not that all of the positions aren't valid ones in the marketplace of ideas but they often cloak their actual missions in 'saving starving children' protective coloring and then shamelessly brand anyone who opposes their politics as someone who hates children, puppies, Mom and probably apple pie too. The NGO world is a vast place, with multi-billion dollar budgets and wielding influence over trillions and they are almost entirely off the books, apparently accountable to nobody, mostly tax free and as transnational institutions all but unaccountable to even nation states. The few times media types have looked closely at one the corruption and sleaze has been pretty easy to find. Anyone who isn't a bit disturbed by this situation probably isn't paying attention.

    So while I know Putin is a monster, and have said so in public for years, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with this policy as the average hivemind here probably does. Blind squirrels, nuts, etc. Putin is almost certainly doing it for all the wrong reasons though.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Appalbarry on Monday May 25 2015, @11:32PM

    by Appalbarry (66) on Monday May 25 2015, @11:32PM (#187778) Journal

    In recent years the Canadian Harper government has launched an extremely aggressive campaign [www.cbc.ca] to remove charitable status from any non-profit organization whose work might conflict with the Conservative agenda. Including Amnesty International and the United Church of Canada!

    It's not even subtle. If your group does some kind of environmental work [davidsuzuki.org] you'll find yourself subject to audits and investigation. If your group is of the right wing variety you'll never get touched. [thestar.com]

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:03AM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:03AM (#187799)

    If they are doing something illegal, then throw the book at them. If they are doing something legal that you don't like then you'll have to deal with it. Anything else is really open for abuse. It could be a huge loophole to shape the country. Maybe abortion is legal but undesirable so any organization that opens a clinic is banned from the country. I suppose locals could operate a clinic without international support though. Just another hurdle.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:27AM (#187808)

      that's the point. now they can say that the NGOs are doing something illegal.
      that's actually the purpose of the legislature: make laws that can be used; in this case, they didn't like the NGOs, but they had no legal backing to mess with them, so they made a law to provide that.

      please note that I'm not saying what they did is right or wrong.
      we could argue it's right, since they are making their intentions clear with a law, and they have the courage to put their name to that law (even though a lot of people would say it's a bad law).
      my opinion is that they're a bunch of mobsters and they're so confident in their hold on the country that they're no longer interested in keeping up with the image of "modern and open" society.

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:44AM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:44AM (#187839)

        How will an NGO know what is undesirable or not? Undesirable is not illegal. The NGOs aren't being banned for doing something illegal. They are being banned because the government doesn't like them.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.