UNICEF: No more Halloween Boxes

[August1991]

Say it ain't so. After 50 years, we will no longer have little Mikey or Jessica at Halloween asking us to drop pennies -- oh, and by the way, candy, too, if you could -- into the little orange UNICEF boxes hanging around their necks.

UNICEF Canada has decided it will no longer hand out its boxes at 7,000 Canadian schools to children going trick-or-treating on Oct. 31.

Link

The UN, from top to bottom, is just dumb (when it's not criminal).

The official press release has all the mumbo-jumbo about new fundraising strategies and third party consultants:

In place of its previous focus on children collecting coins door-to-door, the campaign promotes new ways for children, schools and Canadians of all ages to participate, from organizing Halloween-themed fundraising events at school to kids raising funds at home.

Link

They miss the whole point of kids and boxes at Halloween. And once this system is lost, they won't get it back. I can't believe people would willingly destroy value in a such a way. Maybe it's a good thing - this loss of another small constituency will hasten the demise of the UN, or at least hasten its radical change.

[geoffrey]

They miss the whole point of kids and boxes at Halloween. And once this system is lost, they won't get it back. I can't believe people would willingly destroy value in a such a way. Maybe it's a good thing - this loss of another small constituency will hasten the demise of the UN, or at least hasten its radical change.

Unfortunately it's one wing of the UN that does alot of good.

[August1991]

Unfortunately it's one wing of the UN that does alot of good.

Does it?

UNICEF made a Smurf snuff movie:

The people of Belgium have been left reeling by the first adult-only episode of the Smurfs, in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes.

The short but chilling film is the work of Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, and is to be broadcast on national television next week as a campaign advertisement.

Daily Telegraph

[geoffrey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MAYrF1PDks

That's the link to the actual commerical.

I think it sends a message, real shock value. Sometimes people need a kick in the pants to get it.

[Charles Anthony]

They miss the whole point of kids and boxes at Halloween.

What is that point?

My parents never allowed us to carry those boxes on principle: they did not trust where the money was going.

I can't believe people would willingly destroy value in a such a way.

Actually, I always thought that it was a bad practice. I think it is unwise to get kids into a knock-on-door-beg-for-money-from-strangers mode at a young age. Very risky thing to breed.

[Michael Hardner]

UNICEF has done a lot of good, in the most important areas.

In the various threads we've had in the vein of 'Abolish the UN', I have pointed out the huge effort they have put in to fight against disease and starvation worldwide.

And, most of this anti-UN stuff only started when the UN didn't get behind Gulf War II, which is simply reactive...

[August1991]

I think it sends a message, real shock value. Sometimes people need a kick in the pants to get it.

That's the same reasoning behind schlock TV. When someone uses this approach to cadge money, it's tantamount to psychological extortion.

In any case, the Unicef ad followed on atrocities in Rwanda/Burundi where knives not bombs were the weapon of choice.

UNICEF has done a lot of good, in the most important areas.

In the various threads we've had in the vein of 'Abolish the UN', I have pointed out the huge effort they have put in to fight against disease and starvation worldwide.

And, most of this anti-UN stuff only started when the UN didn't get behind Gulf War II, which is simply reactive...

Criticism of the UN goes back to at least Reagan, the Soviets and fears of a "world government".

The Oil-for-food scandal predates Gulf War II.

And in any case, aside from criminality, most criticsm of the UN centres on its sheer incompetence. That's what is on display when Unicef creates a Smurf-snuff movie or gets rid of Halloween boxes.

Imagine bureaucratic Ottawa without changes in government, an official opposition, media or even an auditor-general. There may be well-meaning individual bureaucrats but they simply don't know what to do to do good. The UN is a large bureaucracy with no accountability controls. The bureaucrats spend other people's money with effectively no incentives for how to spend it properly.

After 50 years or so, bureaucracies like this turn into the Soviet Union, or the UN.

[Higgly]

Unfortunately it's one wing of the UN that does alot of good.

I'd say the WHO and UNHCR, among others, are doing a pretty decent job.

[rover1]

Charles Anthony makes some good points.

No disrespect for the UN or UNICEF, but I have always thought that these boxes were inappropriate. It is sort of 'hijacking' a traditional event and converting it to some other(thought to be good) purpose.

Let the little kids alone, and let them have their treats in peace, I say!

[kimmy]

They miss the whole point of kids and boxes at Halloween.

What is that point?

My parents never allowed us to carry those boxes on principle: they did not trust where the money was going.

I can't believe people would willingly destroy value in a such a way.

Actually, I always thought that it was a bad practice. I think it is unwise to get kids into a knock-on-door-beg-for-money-from-strangers mode at a young age. Very risky thing to breed.

I believe the point is something to do with getting children involved. I know that me and many of my little friends took some amount of pride in the idea that we could be helping other kids in other countries.

The notion that the UNICEF boxes teach kids to be pan-handlers misses the mark, aside from the few little miscreants who bust open their UNICEF boxes to try and steal money out of them. Most kids who participate in the program learn about raising money and giving it to somebody who needs it worse than you do.

The argument strikes me as comparable to saying that the Salvation Army bell-ringers set a bad example for kids, or that the annual Terry Fox Run sets a bad example for kids, or that Terry Fox himself set a bad example for kids. Some one-legged guy jogging around begging for hand-outs? Atrocious. Some role model that guy was!

No disrespect for the UN or UNICEF, but I have always thought that these boxes were inappropriate. It is sort of 'hijacking' a traditional event and converting it to some other(thought to be good) purpose.

Let the little kids alone, and let them have their treats in peace, I say!

Halloween trick-or-treating might be traditional in the sense that it has been around for a long time, but unlike every other traditional event on the calendar, Halloween has no real meaning and no religious significance to anyone (other than perhaps Wiccans...)

For little kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much candy. For big kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much alcohol. For almost nobody is it anything other than an annual lark. The long-standing and widely accepted incorporation of the UNICEF boxes as a part of Halloween tradition actually lends a little bit of nobility to proceedings.

-k

[rover1]

I take it that you don't much care for Hallowe'en then.

[geoffrey]

I believe the point is something to do with getting children involved. I know that me and many of my little friends took some amount of pride in the idea that we could be helping other kids in other countries.

The notion that the UNICEF boxes teach kids to be pan-handlers misses the mark, aside from the few little miscreants who bust open their UNICEF boxes to try and steal money out of them. Most kids who participate in the program learn about raising money and giving it to somebody who needs it worse than you do.

The argument strikes me as comparable to saying that the Salvation Army bell-ringers set a bad example for kids, or that the annual Terry Fox Run sets a bad example for kids, or that Terry Fox himself set a bad example for kids. Some one-legged guy jogging around begging for hand-outs? Atrocious. Some role model that guy was!

Good point. Maybe in one of the many days of excess we have, we should be thinking of those that don't get to eat much at all, let alone pounds of candy (manufactured by the poor kids?). I support UNICEF and the boxes, lets at least add some constructive nature to Halloween.

Halloween trick-or-treating might be traditional in the sense that it has been around for a long time, but unlike every other traditional event on the calendar, Halloween has no real meaning and no religious significance to anyone (other than perhaps Wiccans...)

For little kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much candy. For big kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much alcohol. For almost nobody is it anything other than an annual lark. The long-standing and widely accepted incorporation of the UNICEF boxes as a part of Halloween tradition actually lends a little bit of nobility to proceedings.

-k

Party pooper.

[Borg]

The UN

An organization that is run by some "different" folks.

Will not miss the boxes of money and having seen food aide sold by the ruling parties to the needy in some parts of the world after it was delivered for free distribution - I for one will never donate money to a UN backed group again.

Borg

[kimmy]

I take it that you don't much care for Hallowe'en then.

Party pooper.

Not at all! I love Halloween! I am definitely one of those big kids who look forward to Halloween as a chance to dress up in something that would get me arrested on any other day, get silly, and drink lots of "witches' brew." It's one of my favorite days of the year!

But that doesn't mean I don't see it for what it is. It is (as geoffrey euphemistically puts it) a "day of excess". Unless maybe you're a Wiccan, Halloween's cultural significance begins and ends with being a specially designated day devoted to fun, much like Grey Cup Sunday.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

The UN

An organization that is run by some "different" folks.

Will not miss the boxes of money and having seen food aide sold by the ruling parties to the needy in some parts of the world after it was delivered for free distribution - I for one will never donate money to a UN backed group again.

Borg

I've heard this before, and I don't quite understand it. Isn't the prevalence of abuse important to you relative to the good that the program does as a whole ?

In other words, if this happens 1% of the time, shouldn't you stick with it ?

[August1991]

I'm going to resurrect this thread and quote an entire letter to the Toronto Sun. To set this up, here's kimmy's previous post about Unicef Hallowe'en boxes are a bad example since they teach kids how to extort money:

The argument strikes me as comparable to saying that the Salvation Army bell-ringers set a bad example for kids, or that the annual Terry Fox Run sets a bad example for kids, or that Terry Fox himself set a bad example for kids. Some one-legged guy jogging around begging for hand-outs? Atrocious. Some role model that guy was!

Now the quote:

OUT-FOXED

As a Canadian and a businessman I have been proud to associated with the Terry Fox Fun Run held each June in the national capital of Australia, Canberra. For the past 17 years Canadians and Australians have come together on what is usually a cold winters day to raise money for cancer research and to honour a great man. It is a good family day out. At the end of the race local volunteers and members of the Australian-Canadian Association serve up fresh fruit, hot coffee and pancakes with maple syrup on the beautiful grounds of the Canadian High Commission. Last year we raised $35,000 for cancer research and highlighted a great Canadian. It was very disappointing when I received my sponsor's letter from the Canadian High Commission for this year's run to read that in its 18th year it is now called the "Canada Fun Run For Cancer" with no mention of Terry Fox. The petty bureaucracy of the Canadian-based Terry Fox Foundation dictating the terms and conditions of a Terry Fox Run held in Australia is absurd. I wonder what Terry would have wanted?

Don Maye

Farrer, Australia

Link

Returning to the OP, what is it about bureaucracy (and governments in general) that they just don't get it? The Soviet Union is now the standard example of how central planning doesn't work. In fact, we should use the UN as a better - if less costly - example.

Civilized society must find a better way to organize government. Government bureaucracy is medieval while the world around has moved on several centuries.

[Remiel]

I cannot recall where I saw it, but I remember the interesting question, " If central planning is bad for government, why is it good for business? "