I went to the conference of the International Academy of Estate and Trust Law in Barcelona in May and I was very struck by a most thoughtful talk by a Canadian lawyer from Vancouver called Blake Bromley. He has, over the last 20 years, been advising in the area of developing charitable and philanthropic law for governments in places like Russia and China, among others, and so his insight was that little bit different.

Charity is mandated to counter the actions of terrorism rather than pursue the actors

The burden of his song was that the ‘war on terrorism’ after 9/11, has produced legal definitions of terrorist activities that are draconian and over-reach to the point they include genuine charitable activities. As he points out, charity is mandated to counter the actions of terrorism rather than pursue the actors. War on terrorism co-opts charities to become partisans in a conflict that contradicts the ethos of charity. Charity should, of course, be independent of the political agenda.

The protagonist of the charitable sector in 2010 is exemplified by the priest who passed by on the other side of the road

He then took us through the Parable of the Good Samaritan. You remember how the man walking from Jerusalem to Jericho was beaten up and left for dead. The priest, who was the first on the scene, passed by on the other side and a similarly privileged and prominent citizen also chose to do nothing for the man’s plight. The Samaritan, as you recall, an ethnic and religious minority despised by the people to whom Jesus was talking, helped the man, bandaged his wounds, put him on his donkey, took him to an inn and paid for the inn keeper to look after him and promised to reimburse the inn keeper for any extra expense.

How do we view this parable today? Might we not view the Samaritan as being the villain? What was he doing there on the road on that day? Had the injured man really been a stranger to the Samaritan or were they collaborators? Was the Samaritan helping his friend who had been blown up trying to plant an IED? We would need the regulatory authorities to investigate the incident before we sent a donation to the Red Cross!

But what about thereafter? The Samaritan’s decision to provide financial support not only for this potential terrorist’s immediate needs, but also of his rehabilitation might not be a random act of charity at all. As he paid for the expenses with cash rather than a credit card there are suspicions of money laundering. Nowadays, the ethical benchmark of the charitable sector would require that impulsive acts of mercy should not take place until an investigation has taken place as to whether the person bleeding by the side of the road is on a list of ‘known terrorists’. Indeed, the protagonist of the charitable sector in 2010 is exemplified by the priest who passed by on the other side of the road.

The story is sad because it ought only to be a joke. We ought to be supporting people who do things that are genuinely and simply a reflection of the moral ideals.