U.K. case potentially positive step in recognizing human rights work as charitable.

Human rights work has a checkered history in the world of charity law. One might have thought that this would be an area where the conception of charity in the popular imagination dovetailed with the public benefit that is the litmus test for qualifying in law as a charity. But that is not so. A recent case in the United Kingdom could, however, help change the legal landscape.

Things, seemingly, got off on the right foot way back in 1898 with an Ontario Appeal Court decision, Lewis and Doerle, which held that the upholding of human rights was a recognized charitable purpose. That case said that a trust to promote, aid, and protect U.S. citizens of African descent in the enjoyment of their civil rights qualified as charitable.

Since then, however, the courts have blown hot and cold on efforts to foster, entrench or ensure enjoyment of human rights. This brings us to perhaps the most vexing issue in assessing the charitable nature of human rights work. There are a number of cases where such work has been characterized as advancing a political purpose and/or, in Canada, breaching the ITA requirements limiting non-partisan political activities. They have grappled variously with the scope of such rights, the propriety of work to influence law or conduct in foreign jurisdictions, and human rights efforts potentially being intertwined with political purposes and/or political activities.

With respect to the scope of human rights, there has been consideration of defining such rights with reference to international law and conventions or treaty obligations as well as on the basis of either constitutional provisions or ordinary statutes. The experience is mixed. Some courts are willing to look outside their home jurisdiction for the sources of these rights, while others have taken a narrower view and put more stress on domestic law.

On the question of influencing law or conduct in overseas jurisdictions, the principle that there can be public benefit from charitable work done in countries other than that in which an organization is based -which applies to all types of charitable purposes, not just human rights work--has generally been accepted where charitable efforts are devoted to addressing rights issues. This is, of course, always subject to the proviso that if such work is focused on opposing, changing or retaining legislation or policy, or mobilizing public opinion to do so, it may be considered political rather than charitable.

This brings us...