Carmel
Crusader
In the last day or so (especially), many of us who have been waiting on notification of the status of our submissions, have received notice that our submissions have been "declined as formal submissions" on the basis of relevance.
This is not the end of world......I'm sure all of our correspondence is giving the Senators a "picture" about Scn and the CofS, which they didn't have. That should make a difference in regard to the call for a judicial inquiry, etc.
However, right now, we are looking at a "public benefit test" to determine actual eligibility for tax exempt status before the granting of it is warranted. When so many of us have given the example of the CofS to demonstrate *why* organisations shouldn't be granted tax exemption based on religious or charitable status, and how they use it to get it when they don't deserve it, then why the hell is the information we have provided being deemed as not relevant?
Also, how come the Scio Reverend Mary Anderson gets her submission accepted and published, when her entire focus was on Scientology, and when she included material which essentially slandered former scientologists and their information? (see submission #49 http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_benefit_test_10/submissions.htm )? Some of our submissions which were declined on the basis of relevance to the amendment, had much more "relevance" than Mary's, and they didn't contain BS information.
To me, there seems to be inconsistencies with the criteria on acceptances of submissions. Aside from that, if our submissions are about the CofS, an organisation receiving tax exemption when it doesn't deserve it and *why* it doesn't deserve it, then how can they be deemed as not relevant?
I was pooey about the "declines" based on relevance, coz I thought it was BS, but when I saw the Rev Mary Anderson's submission accepted and published, I got pissed off enough to contact the media. Those I spoke to understood what I was on about, and are interested in asking "why?" (a couple of us are meeting with them in the morning).
We can work with the media this end, but you who have received declines based on relevance to the amendment, could write to the secretary who informed you that your submission was declined, and ask "why so?" given that your submission *was* relevant to a public benefit test (or some change of legislation) being in order for those organisations seeking and being granted tax exemption.
When I received my "decline" (when I knew my submission and attachment was very relevant to the issue at hand), I thought "fuck that!"......and I'm now doing something about it. I won't labour the point.....I just want to say that there's nothing stopping you from communicating your objection or disagreement if you have one (politely, of course ).
Leave it with ya!
This is not the end of world......I'm sure all of our correspondence is giving the Senators a "picture" about Scn and the CofS, which they didn't have. That should make a difference in regard to the call for a judicial inquiry, etc.
However, right now, we are looking at a "public benefit test" to determine actual eligibility for tax exempt status before the granting of it is warranted. When so many of us have given the example of the CofS to demonstrate *why* organisations shouldn't be granted tax exemption based on religious or charitable status, and how they use it to get it when they don't deserve it, then why the hell is the information we have provided being deemed as not relevant?
Also, how come the Scio Reverend Mary Anderson gets her submission accepted and published, when her entire focus was on Scientology, and when she included material which essentially slandered former scientologists and their information? (see submission #49 http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_benefit_test_10/submissions.htm )? Some of our submissions which were declined on the basis of relevance to the amendment, had much more "relevance" than Mary's, and they didn't contain BS information.
To me, there seems to be inconsistencies with the criteria on acceptances of submissions. Aside from that, if our submissions are about the CofS, an organisation receiving tax exemption when it doesn't deserve it and *why* it doesn't deserve it, then how can they be deemed as not relevant?
I was pooey about the "declines" based on relevance, coz I thought it was BS, but when I saw the Rev Mary Anderson's submission accepted and published, I got pissed off enough to contact the media. Those I spoke to understood what I was on about, and are interested in asking "why?" (a couple of us are meeting with them in the morning).
We can work with the media this end, but you who have received declines based on relevance to the amendment, could write to the secretary who informed you that your submission was declined, and ask "why so?" given that your submission *was* relevant to a public benefit test (or some change of legislation) being in order for those organisations seeking and being granted tax exemption.
When I received my "decline" (when I knew my submission and attachment was very relevant to the issue at hand), I thought "fuck that!"......and I'm now doing something about it. I won't labour the point.....I just want to say that there's nothing stopping you from communicating your objection or disagreement if you have one (politely, of course ).
Leave it with ya!