What is absurdly clear from the recently released white paper outlining the revised Society Act, is that the current Liberal government has issues with priorities. While there is a scarcity of accountability for corporate activities in BC (I’m looking at you, Kinder Morgan), the government seems overly concerned with regulating non-profit societies.

Section 99 of the proposed act is of particular interest, as it allows for any “member of the public” to file an application to the BC Supreme Court if they feel that a registered non-profit society is acting in a way that is “detrimental to the public interest.” This act essentially introduces an undue amount of ambiguity, while misunderstandsing the role of non-profits, and will be used to lessen the impact these societies have in BC.

The ambiguity of the term ‘public interest’ implies an unacceptable amount of judicial interpretation in a non-partisan court system. In order to define the public interest, a judge must determine what interests are at hand and whose interests take priority. The very nature of politics is centred on this question.

Whether one defines public interest as job creation, environmental protection, or income equality, it ultimately remains a political position on which all parties in BC take a stance. This term cannot be interpreted without a partisan judgement.

The term ‘public interest’ cannot be interpreted [by the government] without a partisan judgement.

Section 99 further affirms that there is a “general expectation that societies will act in the public interest.” Considering the ambiguity in ‘public interest,’ it is clear that no non-profit could live up to this “expectation.” These organizations exist in our society as mechanisms for concerned individuals — who are otherwise voiceless — to organize and collectively advance their own specific interests.

To legally incorporate as a non-profit involves its structure and finances, more than its specific aims. Non-profits functions to counter hegemonic opinions and create a democratic civil society in which people can play a greater role in politics beyond the act of voting. Tying the legitimacy of a society with its specific actions contravenes this purpose and lessens its positive social impact.

The act will lead to silence, and intimidate those organizations whose activities are incongruent with the Liberal political agenda. It places a disproportionate burden on already struggling non-profits to not only self-regulate actions for fear of legal reaction, but to spend enormous amounts of their already tight budgets defending themselves in courts from accusations which can be raised by anyone, and be justified by any rationale the court finds convenient.

Outlined in Section 98 (3) are the court’s available remedies, which include “directing the society’s activities” and “ordering the society to liquidate and dissolve.” These measures clearly constitute overreaching power of the courts — a power that concerns me, especially given recent news that the BC Supreme Court denied the City of Burnaby an injunction against Kinder Morgan for violating the city’s bylaws. The courts simply cannot be relied on to protect public interest.

The true intentions of this act may be benevolent, but I remain dubious. This white paper places too much power in government hands, and constrains public free speech and action for the good of society. The Society Act is yet another bill that strips away the democratic standings of our nation.