Jagmeet Singh Reinstates NDP MP David Christopherson Of Critic Role After Outcry

565 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101

Would clearer wording have changed anything?  I'm sure the so-cons would still have screamed bloody murder, but perhaps there would be fewer negative media headlines and editorials.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Saw a "meme" the other day that said "Old people feel disrespected if you don't let them disrespect you."

Religious types too.

Debater

AT ISSUE

Unrest in the NDP, Liberals' divisive attestation

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-DWrsUzPM

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Saw a "meme" the other day that said "Old people feel disrespected if you don't let them disrespect you."

Religious types too.

I think that applies to a lot of authoritarian people, including bad parents and poorly-trained managers.   For them "respect" means submission, including tolerance for abuse.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

In an actual court, a judge would never accept an argument that the term "respect" could mean "admire," and thus a certain opinion is solicited by the government.   Courts focus on practical applications of laws/policies, not on all possible semantic uses of words.   "The court" of public opinion however, is another story.  It can be easily swayed by corporate media, and that's why the Libs should have been a bit more careful.    Apparently some lawyers drafted the attestation.   They should have asked political communications experts to double-check it as well.

It worked out beautifully for the Liberals. This reads as the Liberals defending charter rights and reproductive freedom. The Conservatives having a fit over it, and the NDP confused. From the perspective of the Liberals, there is nothing not to like. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think that applies to a lot of authoritarian people, including bad parents and poorly-trained managers.   For them "respect" means submission, including tolerance for abuse.

OK.  But I really just thought it applied in this case because:

1. evidently, some faith organizations feel coerced to "respect" Adam and Steve, or reproductive choice.  I'm going with their definition of "respect" here.

2. evidently, those same groups feel the government has done them a huge disrespect by asking them to respect Adam and Steve, or reproductive choice.

So... they feel disrespected if we don't let them disrespect others.

And that's a shame.  A low-down, dirty shame.  What if Jeebus NEEDS them to disrespect sinners?  Did we ever consider that????  What if they just find homos and loose women gross?  Who is the Government of Canada and its "Charter" to argue?

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

It worked out beautifully for the Liberals. This reads as the Liberals defending charter rights and reproductive freedom. The Conservatives having a fit over it, and the NDP confused. From the perspective of the Liberals, there is nothing not to like. 

If you ignore the fact they screwed up and admitted they are going to have to change the form.

Of course they are going to deflect that by trying to blame the people who were inconvenienced by it.

The NDP? From what I see they more than anyone managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I agree they are confused, but they messed this up all by themselves. And they also left the Cons to reap all the benefit.

As for who is going to win, I expect the Conservatives knew they were going to lose the vote, but that's not why they did it. They are thinking a year down the road to the next election, and all those voters who weren't able to sign this form even though their projects had nothing to do with reproductive rights or LGBT issues.

Is it going to play well here in Saskatchewan? You betcha. Could the NDP have gotten out in front of it? Yup. In fact when this all started they did. Then they blew it.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I am not a right winger and want practical wording that accomplishes something. The insinuations about people who seee a problem here is disturbing.

I have worked in law and I seriosuly think that this would never be litigated and if it did it woudl be questionned for a number of reasons. It requires an interpretation from the signatory about a mandate that may not speak to it directly.

I disagree that this is behaviour only and contend that if it were language to that effect would have been better. A liability of an organization to respect soemthign is not the same as one to enforce  a behaviour on their employees.

But since all parties have said this language is crappy, why are we debating the idea that the language is fine here? And why woudl it matter. It is not just right wing people saying this is political language rather than a firm legal requirement that creates change.

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes, I am wondering how some people wound up back there too, Sean. Seeing as it was settled, and all.

 

Sean in Ottawa

This thread is clearly turned into a drive-by on an NDP MP who is pro-choice and in favour of all human rights we are here. This attempt to dismiss his concerns by smearing this position instead of respectfully disagreeing with it is disgusting.

WWWTT

The NDP? From what I see they more than anyone managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I agree they are confused, but they messed this up all by themselves. And they also left the Cons to reap all the benefit.

As for who is going to win,

You're looking into this way way too much! Actually, so are a bunch of other posters here.

This issue really has nothing to do with (I'm talking about the thread title now and not about some other drift topic the thread has slipt into) the liberals or conservatives. It's about the inner workings of the NDP and trying to get some insight on how Jagmeet is going to steer the leadership/direction of the NDP.

I still think he's doing a good job and has a few tricks up his sleeve!!! 

6079_Smith_W

WWWTT

I'm just telling you how it is going to play among voters here in SK. And it pisses me off because it was completely unnecessary. Nathan Cullen called this one right from the start.

 

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W, you said they are going to change the form???  Can you post the source of your info please?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
If you ignore the fact they screwed up and admitted they are going to have to change the form.

I doubt it would have gotten even near the amount of media attention it did had they done it right in the first place. Free advertising. Trudeau signaled his progressive credentials. He got the media off the India hang-up. 

All that matters to the Liberals is the impact on voters at the time of the election. This will not hurt Trudeau's electoral chances. 

SocialJustice101

never mind Smith, I found it: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/26/labour-minister-patty-hajdu-willing-to-modify-controversial-summer-jobs-funding-application_a_23395763/

Apparently they'll use the phrase "core activities," as I previously suggested.  

SocialJustice101

Instead of "core mandate respects,"   I'd suggest "core actitivies do not contravene."

6079_Smith_W

@ Pondering

Yes I agree absolutely it would all have been better if they had put a bit more thought into it. But they didn't. And they didn't do a very good job of cleaning up the mess either. Organizations that had no reason to have their projects shut out are quite justified in being furious about this.

I think you might be surprised at the effect it may have on the next election.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This attempt to dismiss his concerns by smearing this position instead of respectfully disagreeing with it is disgusting.

What does "respectfully" mean?

If we don't understand -- quite reasonably, of course -- what "respect" means, how can we possibly act "respectfully" toward anything?

What you said acts like people can possibly understand that word, and evidently the problem is that we cannot.  It's the same word.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

Yes I agree absolutely it would all have been better if they had put a bit more thought into it. But they didn't. And they didn't do a very good job of cleaning up the mess either. Organizations that had no reason to have their projects shut out are quite justified in being furious about this.

I think you might be surprised at the effect it may have on the next election.

Maybe but I doubt it. I think the people who would vote on this basis would already go Conservative. I expect the next election will be really boring. 

 

SocialJustice101

The Cons will likely use the issue to motivate their religious right base, but it's not going to be a game changer.

I'm sure the average voter will never bother to read the attestation.   Even if it had clearer wording, the so-cons would still have been disgruntled.

Rev Pesky

Just by the by, as a person who was brought up in a 'Christian' home I would like to point out that victimhood is an essentail part of Christianity. Over and over again, I was reminded that 'the world' would pressure me because of my Christianity. Examples of same were a constant feature of Sunday School, and all were encouraged to see the non-Christian world as a group that was ever trying to destroy our religion.

Thus, Christians are ever ready to take offence, and will make something up if they have to.

Posted above, by...can't remember:

Since compliance with Charter rights is already law,

My understanding is the Charter applies to actions the government takes in relation to the citizenry. It may not prevent private business or organization from doing things which are forbidden to the government.

One last item. Given the NDP has a house leader, did not Singh and the house leader discuss the removal of Christopherson before the deed was done? 

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:
One last item. Given the NDP has a house leader, did not Singh and the house leader discuss the removal of Christopherson before the deed was done? 

Oh, I sure hope these two people who have no authority under the NDP constitution consulted as to how to do whatever they please. Maybe they should have consulted with the Governor-General as well.

Rev Pesky

From Unionist:

Maybe they should have consulted with the Governor-General as well.

Well, okay, but I'm not familiar with the constitution of the NDP. It appears that Singh was the person who unseated Christopherson, constitutionally or no. I just wondered, because there is another person who is the caucus leader, so to speak, who might have been consulted before the deed was done. 

​After all, if I appoint someone to stand in my place in the parliamentary caucus, I would think it was at least polite to consult with them before taking a rather drastic action re: another member of caucus. Such a consultation may have prevented Singh from looking pretty foolish.

SocialJustice101

Pondering wrote:

It worked out beautifully for the Liberals. This reads as the Liberals defending charter rights and reproductive freedom. The Conservatives having a fit over it, and the NDP confused. From the perspective of the Liberals, there is nothing not to like. 

I disagree.  The Liberals could have had their cake and eat it too, instead, the attestation generated bad press from all sources, including the Toronto Star.    If the wording was clearer, the so-cons would still be upset and Trudeau would still look like a defender of human rights, but the media would have been less negative.

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:
​After all, if I appoint someone to stand in my place in the parliamentary caucus, I would think it was at least polite to consult with them before taking a rather drastic action re: another member of caucus.

Yeah, I know Singh "appointed" Caron. I also know that he has no legal power to do so under the rules that NDP members have decided in convention. But NDP members being what they are, no one gives a crap.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It worked out beautifully for the Liberals. This reads as the Liberals defending charter rights and reproductive freedom. The Conservatives having a fit over it, and the NDP confused. From the perspective of the Liberals, there is nothing not to like. 

I disagree.  The Liberals could have had their cake and eat it too, instead, the attestation generated bad press from all sources, including the Toronto Star.    If the wording was clearer, the so-cons would still be upset and Trudeau would still look like a defender of human rights, but the media would have been less negative.

With the exception, I think, of the Star, the media all endorsed Harper. The media doesn't matter because they are not that influential anymore. Old people read them. I picked up the Montreal Gazette for my mother on Saturday and I was shocked to see the entire front page was an advertisement. 

The chattering class is talking to itself and political junkies. What I am saying is traditional news media doesn't matter any more. What happens on Tout le Monde and The Social is more important than what pundits say.  Swing voters couldn't care less if Singh gets a seat ahead of the election or gives speeches in parliament. Everyone knows it's theatre. As always the decision will be based on the economy, or rather which of the leaders will manage it best. 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

First, I'm not a fan of Liberals but less so of the dangerous decline into dishonesty around this issue allowed to proliferate. This was clarified months ago while the application process was still open, definitions and all:

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/canada-summer-jobs/supplementary-information.html

 

Sean, Smith, are you aware of this? I have no clue how it's still being dishonestly opined on today as an opinion piece I saw is outright lying.

 

As babblers I generally always enjoy to read, even when I don't agree, this particular issue leads me to hope you were unaware of the actual facts.

 

Or should government funds go to organizations that want to discriminate? Not asking in a political sense of the issue but politics aside, what exactly is wrong with trying to prevent funds being used as in the examples?

Rev Pesky

The examples given in the above posted link make it clear that personal, or even organizational, beliefs are not the deciding factor in receiving grant money. As noted by RevolutionPlease, the explanation (with examples) has been available since January 23 of this year.

My opinion is that the conditions are not only clear, but completely defensible. 

Unionist

Rev Pesky wrote:

The examples given in the above posted link make it clear that personal, or even organizational, beliefs are not the deciding factor in receiving grant money. As noted by RevolutionPlease, the explanation (with examples) has been available since January 23 of this year.

My opinion is that the conditions are not only clear, but completely defensible. 

Agreed - and thanks RevolutionPlease.

JKR

Lately when it's been the truth versus partisan politics, partisan politics has tended to Trump the truth.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Sean, I believe your legal questions are answered along with any misconceptions why I might not be pleased with Mr. Christopherson along with you and others spreading misinformation propogated by the right, which I do not blame you for and just hope to clarify.

You said:

"Second the government, if they think there is not enough public respect for these rights (which is a fair concern) has the right to engage in public education on that point. It can also require organizations it deals with not to advocate against these rights -- which I think is the greatest concern given that compliance is already law. I think the government can ask for not only compliance but also a policy of not advocating against these rights. Leaving out potential definitions around respect this is a direct prohibition."

From my link above, over 2 months ago:

"Respect: Individual human rights are respected when an organization’s primary activities, and the job responsibilities, do not seek to remove or actively undermine these existing rights."

Do you see why I take issue with your understanding of the issue?

You state:

"Also when I mentionned single out I mean that applying for this grant money is not the only government benefit. I think ALL employers and even all people really ought to respect these rights. I just think that won't come by legislation. I do think compliance ought to be a matter of law -- and arguably it already is -- equally for everyone not just those benefitting from this particular program."

Compliance is regularly violated by non-governmental/private organizations. Some exist solely to not respect these rights but don't conflate and confuse the issue as their freedom to hate is protected. The crux of this issue, is this freedom was funded by government dollars as recently as last year and non-approvals of funding requests by the government for programs that actively discriminated or worked to remove human rights were challenged in court as this was not an explicit requirement of the agreement. This change was introduced for the purpose of providing broad legal language to deny funding that would make the government an enabler of those seeking to deny human rights. I am sure most would agree that we expect our government to hold this higher standard as a requirement of all funding it provides and although I don't know, may also be required by law for governmental business.

Organizations that fully understood the attestation and had previously been able to manipulate their stated activities and job descriptions to receive funds were now faced with a significantly enhanced legal agreement leaving them now liable for repayment of funds or denial. As with the example referenced upthread of companies pulling ads, sycophants were riled to a froth still repeating the mantra of their ignorance or outright manipulation to this very day, published April 3 in the Toronto Sun: "The eight-week ICC camp won’t operate because the Trudeau government won’t give Canada Summer Jobs grants to any group that refuses to sign an “attestation” swearing it supports, among other things, abortion and same-sex marriage." when any honest broker to the masses would have known for over 2 months:

Example 5: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs that operates a summer camp for disadvantaged youth applies for funding to hire students as camp counselors. The students would be responsible for developing programs for the youth, including leadership and skills development. This organization would be eligible to apply.

Sean, I believe your legal questions are answered along with my reasons for being particularly hostile to this issue.

Smith, you are carrying water for discrimination. You state:

"Actually everyone involved - the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives - has acknowledged that the form is unclear. So there's no need to continue gaslighting here. They aren't imagining anything.

And yes, this reversal was the right decision."

The Liberals have not acknowledged the form is unclear, only offering politicalese pandering acknowledgement that selective reading comprehension might be better appeased.

Did the NDP still claim it lacked "clarity" after the supplementary information was provided? I hope not.

Again, you state:

"It isn't. They may just have been the ones who noticed it first, but so what?

All the parties concerned have acknowledged it. It's clear to me. It is clear to many people. It was clear enough to David Christopherson that he put his position on the line for it.

Seems to me the only ones who are saying it isn't are those who think it isn't important, think they should just lie and sign it, or think they deserve to be shut out from consideration."

To help answer questions on eligibility for Canada Summer Jobs funding, the following supplementary information addresses the applicant organizations and the core mandate referred to in the attestation section of the application: 

  • Organization: This is the entity that is directly applying to use CSJ funding. 
  • Core mandate: This is the primary activities undertaken by the organization that reflect the organization’s ongoing services provided to the community. It is not the beliefs of the organization, and it is not the values of the organization. 
  • Respect: Individual human rights are respected when an organization’s primary activities, and the job responsibilities, do not seek to remove or actively undermine these existing rights. 

The CSJ program will ‎not fund organizations whose primary activities:

  • involve partisan political activities; or 
  • do not respect – seek to remove or actively undermine – established individual human rights in Canada.

Examples

Examples are illustrative and are provided to assist organizations in determining and attesting to their eligibility to apply:

  • Example 1: An organization whose primary activities are focused on removing, or actively undermining existing women’s reproductive rights, applies for funding. This organization would not be eligible to apply.
  • Example 2: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs applies for funding to hire students to serve meals to the homeless. The organization provides numerous programs in support of their community.  The students would be responsible for meal planning, buying groceries, serving meals, etc.  This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 3: A faith-based organization that embraces a traditional definition of marriage but whose primary activities reduce social isolation among seniors applies for funding to hire students. The students would be responsible for developing and delivering programs to all seniors, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. ‎ This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 4: A summer camp submits an application to hire students as camp counselors. However, the camp does not welcome LGBTQ2 young people. The camp is not eligible to apply.
  • Example 5: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs that operates a summer camp for disadvantaged youth applies for funding to hire students as camp counselors. The students would be responsible for developing programs for the youth, including leadership and skills development. This organization would be eligible to apply.

What's not clear to you from the clarification?

Here you state:

"Here is Labour Minister Patty Hadju admitting that it should have more clearly been about activities, and that they are changing the form (in the story, not the video clip). 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/26/labour-minister-patty-hajdu-wil...

So people understood the meaning of the words just fine. They were inaccurate."

Dude, you are going to double down on an issue of reading comprehension semantics that were clarified, i'd argue, quite clearly, and push your chips in grossly and dishonestly claiming she "admitted" in place of "suggested" and  "should have more clearly been about activities" in place of  "We did do some clarification on the website about what we were trying to get at," she said, about a clarification in January about core activities." and then unequivocally claiming she stated "that they are changing the form" when "I think there is room to make it more clear in the years going forward that that's what we are getting at but again, whatever we do, it will be still with the policy goal of ensuring that we don't in any way support organizations that are in any way working to undermine Canadians' rights,"  

 

You hit the trifecta of selective reading comprehension all in one sentence and I use the word "selective" loosely as this whole charade is about loss of funding for jobs that discriminate.

Your claim of loss of jobs/funding for programs that had nothing to do with reproduction/human relationships, etc. is a false flag flown for fervent fallacy.

From your link, she in fact (real quote), in my view, quite contradicatory to your representation, does not equivocate about the underlying principle:

"But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."

But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."

Smith, you are carrying water for discrimination. You state:

"Actually everyone involved - the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives - has acknowledged that the form is unclear. So there's no need to continue gaslighting here. They aren't imagining anything.

And yes, this reversal was the right decision."

The Liberals have not acknowledged the form is unclear, only offering politicalese pandering acknowledgement that selective reading comprehension might be better appeased.

Did the NDP still claim it lacked "clarity" after the supplementary information was provided? I hope not.

Again, you state:

"It isn't. They may just have been the ones who noticed it first, but so what?

All the parties concerned have acknowledged it. It's clear to me. It is clear to many people. It was clear enough to David Christopherson that he put his position on the line for it.

Seems to me the only ones who are saying it isn't are those who think it isn't important, think they should just lie and sign it, or think they deserve to be shut out from consideration."

To help answer questions on eligibility for Canada Summer Jobs funding, the following supplementary information addresses the applicant organizations and the core mandate referred to in the attestation section of the application: 

  • Organization: This is the entity that is directly applying to use CSJ funding. 
  • Core mandate: This is the primary activities undertaken by the organization that reflect the organization’s ongoing services provided to the community. It is not the beliefs of the organization, and it is not the values of the organization. 
  • Respect: Individual human rights are respected when an organization’s primary activities, and the job responsibilities, do not seek to remove or actively undermine these existing rights. 

The CSJ program will ‎not fund organizations whose primary activities:

  • involve partisan political activities; or 
  • do not respect – seek to remove or actively undermine – established individual human rights in Canada.

Examples

Examples are illustrative and are provided to assist organizations in determining and attesting to their eligibility to apply:

  • Example 1: An organization whose primary activities are focused on removing, or actively undermining existing women’s reproductive rights, applies for funding. This organization would not be eligible to apply.
  • Example 2: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs applies for funding to hire students to serve meals to the homeless. The organization provides numerous programs in support of their community.  The students would be responsible for meal planning, buying groceries, serving meals, etc.  This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 3: A faith-based organization that embraces a traditional definition of marriage but whose primary activities reduce social isolation among seniors applies for funding to hire students. The students would be responsible for developing and delivering programs to all seniors, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. ‎ This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 4: A summer camp submits an application to hire students as camp counselors. However, the camp does not welcome LGBTQ2 young people. The camp is not eligible to apply.
  • Example 5: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs that operates a summer camp for disadvantaged youth applies for funding to hire students as camp counselors. The students would be responsible for developing programs for the youth, including leadership and skills development. This organization would be eligible to apply.

What's not clear to you from the clarification?

Here you state:

"Here is Labour Minister Patty Hadju admitting that it should have more clearly been about activities, and that they are changing the form (in the story, not the video clip). 

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/26/labour-minister-patty-hajdu-wil...

So people understood the meaning of the words just fine. They were inaccurate."

Dude, you are going to double down on an issue of reading comprehension semantics that were clarified, i'd argue, quite clearly, and push your chips in grossly and dishonestly claiming she "admitted" in place of "suggested" and  "should have more clearly been about activities" in place of  "We did do some clarification on the website about what we were trying to get at," she said, about a clarification in January about core activities." and then unequivocally claiming she stated "that they are changing the form" when "I think there is room to make it more clear in the years going forward that that's what we are getting at but again, whatever we do, it will be still with the policy goal of ensuring that we don't in any way support organizations that are in any way working to undermine Canadians' rights,"  

You hit the trifecta of selective reading comprehension all in one sentence and I use the word "selective" loosely as this whole charade is about loss of funding for jobs that discriminate.

Your claim of loss of jobs/funding for programs that had nothing to do with reproduction/human relationships, etc. is a false flag flown for fervent fallacy.

From your link, she in fact (real quote), in my view, quite contradicatory to your representation, does not equivocate about the underlying principle:

"But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."

But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."But Hajdu has no regrets about the government's decision, and doesn't believe it over-reached.

"Canadians expect us to ensure that their children are getting quality job experiences that are fundamentally going to respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights," she said. "This is a government that believes in gender equality...[and] reproductive choice is the foundation of gender equality."

 

I will still respect (not the admire way) your rights to see the issue differently.

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W wrote:

WWWTT

I'm just telling you how it is going to play among voters here in SK. And it pisses me off because it was completely unnecessary. Nathan Cullen called this one right from the start.

Nathan Cullen's first comment implied that the Charter already applies to private organizations and that it's the job of the police to enforce it.   His lack of basic legal knowledge is quite shameful for a parliamentarian.   No wonder he had to backtrack in disgrace.

Cody87

Rev Pesky wrote:

Just by the by, as a person who was brought up in a 'Christian' home I would like to point out that victimhood is an essentail part of Christianity. Over and over again, I was reminded that 'the world' would pressure me because of my Christianity. Examples of same were a constant feature of Sunday School, and all were encouraged to see the non-Christian world as a group that was ever trying to destroy our religion.

Thus, Christians are ever ready to take offence, and will make something up if they have to.

This is all true, but I found it striking how easily I can swap out 'Christian' here for other groups that are more clearly hateful, like MGTOW and white nationalists as just a couple of examples. This seems to be a common feature of organized identity groups.

6079_Smith_W

I know words and ideas can sometimes get bent out of shape, but signing a declaration that my organization's core mandate really means cutting grass seems particularly hard to  believe.

All parties here agreed that the government made a mistake. If the Liberals had truly wanted to correct that mistake they wouldn't have put the burden on applicants to accept that words don't mean what they really do mean.

In other words, they would have accepted those applications which were left blank, and were in some cases accompanied by letters of explanation. They didn't do that, so as far as I am concerned, they are still responsible for all those projects which were not granted funding because of their mistake.

As much some here claim they are okay with it, I think the story might be quite different if it was any of you being expected to make a false claim and told that you should just sign it because the words don't mean anything.

And I don't think you would be blaming the victims of this mistake either if they weren't people with whom we have a political disagreement.

(edit)

And SJ101. Cullen didn't get it wrong at all. He didn't say anything about groups' rights being infringed on. He said that it was offensive, drove an unnecessary wedge, and was an issue that can be dealt with without such an intrusive measure. He was absolutely right.

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W, Nobody besides the conservatives thinks the government made a mistake.   The change could have been implemented better, but it's certainly a positive change.

6079_Smith_W

SJ101. I have already pointed out the article in which the minister in charge said she would be changing the form, and you have acknowledged you read it. I also pointed out that the NDP whip said the form was unclear.

What you are saying there is simply not true. All parties have admitted that there was a mistake.

 

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W wrote:
What you are saying there is simply not true. All parties have admitted that there was a mistake.

That's very binary thinking.  Just because the measure was not implemented perfectly, doesn't mean it was a mistake.       The minister said they will further clarify the form for next year because many applicants don't understand the "mandate" terminology.   Declined applications from this year will stay declined.  Organizations will still be required to affirm that their "core actitivies" respect human rights and the Charter.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
See 28.1.  That’s all they had to ask to cover it.

Then they could have saved some ink and paper and just said "You agree not to break any law.".  But here's 28.1:

Quote:
28.1 The Employer shall carry out the Project in compliance with all applicable laws, by-laws and regulations, including labour regulations in the province or territory where the employment is located; any environmental legislation; and, any legislation regarding protection of information and privacy. The Employer shall obtain, prior to the commencement of the Project, all permits, licenses, consents and other authorizations that are necessary to the carrying out of the Project

Sounds like they want to make sure that if you're going to build something, you have the necessary municipal permit, you won't break a bylaw by doing the loud digging at 2 a.m., and you won't hire workers under the table for cash.

Not seeing anything there about the Charter, which is not a "law" in law-speak.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

This is kind of funny.

Tempers flare over charity ban, trustees leave Halton Catholic school board meeting in protest

Quote:
The Halton Catholic school board may be taking a step back from its recent charity donation ban — at least for the time being.

The issue of the injunction, which has received significant public backlash in recent weeks, came to a tipping point at Tuesday’s Catholic school board meeting resulting in its abrupt end after several trustees left in protest following the dismissal of a motion related to the ban.

Put in place in February, the ban prohibits financial donations to charities and non-profits that support, directly or indirectly, abortion, contraception, sterilization, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research.

I know they're not the government.  I know they have to be able to look Jeebus in the eye on Judgement Day.

But damn, they're not even giving them the option to hold their nose and check off a checkbox!

I should be all worried about them and their feewings why, again?

6079_Smith_W

Do you seriously need that explained to you, Magoo?

I mean if you really don't get it, I can give you two or three reasons why you should.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I mean if you really don't get it, I can tell you several reasons why you should.

I'm not demanding that you knock yourself out, but if you could throw us a few, I think that would be good.

Because evidently I should support them with my money, even when I disagree with them and what they want to do, but they shouldn't so much as allow people to freely donate money if it's for something they disagree with.

But yes, please!  Tell us more.  Gord forbid that a real Catholic could want to contribute to something the Pope don't like!

6079_Smith_W

Well funny you should mention the pope. The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops pulled something like this in the early part of this decade - defunding organizations that had even a tangential connection with reproductive technology and marriage equality issues. A lot of groups and a lot of people wound up suffering because of it.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2012/11/08/why-have-catholic-bishops-resc...

As it happens, a number of reform Catholic groups criticized them. In fact, if you follow some of the story from back then you'll find they aren't exactly on the same page as the Pope either.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/did-catholic-spring-groups-under...

So that's one thing.

If you think shutting out religious organizations is fair turnaround for a Catholic School Board implementing a policy like this perhaps you should consider who is really losing out on jobs, and services. It isn't getting back at the school division, it is just hurting people on the receiving end, exactly like what they are doing.

It's also true that there are 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world. Not all of them are of the same mind about abortion and LGBT issues. In fact I'd guess a few of them have had abortions and are LGBT.

Another point is that discrimination based on political and religious values is an attack on all of us no matter who it is directed at. And it doesn't matter if it concerns an organization which itself discriminates.

Just because a church might have discriminatory dogma doesn't make it right to shut them out from services because of their values. Forcing them to sign a false declaration like this is putting them in a corner where they have no choice but to do that.

And then there's the point I raised already that this says more about Liberal arrogance than it does about any religious belief. If they wanted to impress on people the importance of respecting human rights they sure picked a stupid way to do it. This will come back at them.
 

WWWTT

First, I'm not a fan of Liberals but less so of the dangerous decline into dishonesty around this issue allowed to proliferate. This was clarified months ago while the application process was still open, definitions and all:

example #6

a group that believes that wearing a poppy glorified war pigs and violence and that this is a part of colonialism. And actively petitions the government to stop the bullshit propaganda!

oh but wait we can’t have that because it’s partisan politics. 

Great 5 examples provided by the government, if it was still 1993!

when are you guys going to move on to the next injustice? Or do other injustices not matter? And if they don’t matter, does anyone want to provide a ranking of what injustices should get priority?

Cody87

6079_Smith_W wrote:
As much some here claim they are okay with it, I think the story might be quite different if it was any of you being expected to make a false claim and told that you should just sign it because the words don't mean anything.

And I don't think you would be blaming the victims of this mistake either if they weren't people with whom we have a political disagreement.

...

If you think shutting out religious organizations is fair turnaround for a Catholic School Board implementing a policy like this perhaps you should consider who is really losing out on jobs, and services. It isn't getting back at the school division, it is just hurting people on the receiving end, exactly like what they are doing.

It's also true that there are 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world. Not all of them are of the same mind about abortion and LGBT issues. In fact I'd guess a few of them have had abortions and are LGBT.

Another point is that discrimination based on political and religious values is an attack on all of us no matter who it is directed at. And it doesn't matter if it concerns an organization which itself discriminates.

This is so refreshing to see. I really appreciate a properly nuanced position that can look more than one step ahead on an issue, like who is really being affected and how a person might react differently depending on their affinity (or lack thereof) of the group being targeted. Your stance here is very well-considered and I respect it immensely.

SocialJustice101

WWWTT, step one in moving onto other issues:  stop government funding to militant so-con groups.

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If you think shutting out religious organizations is fair turnaround for a Catholic School Board implementing a policy like this perhaps you should consider who is really losing out on jobs, and services. It isn't getting back at the school division, it is just hurting people on the receiving end, exactly like what they are doing.

Once again, religion, and only religion, gets to get away with this preposterous "But we're helping people! It'd sure be a shame if we had to dump them on the street because we're homophobic!" logic. No consideration is ever given to using state funds to directly provide services. If La Meute wanted to build whites-only public housing, nobody would be lining up to say "At least they're building housing! The government's failed at that! Please, give them our tax dollars!"

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Another point is that discrimination based on political and religious values is an attack on all of us no matter who it is directed at. And it doesn't matter if it concerns an organization which itself discriminates.

Not funding racism, sexism, and homophobia isn't "an attack on all of us" the same way, y'know, funding them is. And it's pretty obvious that not all political values get funded; there's no federal Department of Marxism-Leninism, and the federal government doesn't spend equally to support Québec sovereignty alongside federalism. Moreover...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Just because a church might have discriminatory dogma doesn't make it right to shut them out from services because of their values.

Are they being excluded from health care (like they want to exclude women)? Do police and fire services no longer respond to the homes and churches of the discriminators? They're certainly not being shut out of education, since they get public funds to maintain a parallel system where they can preach that same discriminatory dogma. Hell, they're also not being asked to give up their tax exemptions. They're just losing some of their public-expense summer staff.

Sean in Ottawa

Revolution Please - I tried to find this description when I first read about this. At the time there was nothing like this.

I agree with the description and agree that it answers my legal questions. This does not mean that I think the communications on this have been reasonable. The wording on the firm could have been tighter and reflected more directly the intention found in the description.

My opinion seeing both together is that this was either botched communications or a political ploy to pick a fight with the language of the form knowing that the meanign is not what the form suggests. The language of the form does not reflect well the description. Such descriptions ought to further explain but not be as fundamentally different as this is. This takes a very public sweeping statement and then narrows it to the kind of territory it should have been in the first place -- in a different document. It is also possible that the sweeping language was what was intended and the specifc rules were adjusted by January 23rd to limit it based on feedback. The original story was out well before January. Respect in language is an active word -- it is not about not doing something and the side definition to this effect is lousy communications.

Here you have an article from the day the website made this change speaking about this website description as being a change -- this was a news story I did not see on the day but here is a link:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-clarify-lgbtq-and-abortions-rights-...

So to be clear -- i have no objection to the requirement as described on the website. I think the form ought to have reflected that more clearly from the start.

To start it could have addressed what orgnaizations do and do not do -- advocating against these rights exactly as the website suggests without defining this as respect and speaking of core mandates. When you read the fine print that was all a red herring. The website basically says you cannot advocate agaisnt charter rights if youa re going to take government money. This is simple. Why did they make it complicated if they did not intend to mislead?

Communications is about using the common language not taking words like mandate and respect floating them on a form and redefining them to mean something different.

Let me say this: By the governments tortured web site language they are saying that the Catholic Church respects choice. I call that bullshit. They don't. They at best would tolerate it in the manner the website suggests (not fight it while taking government money) but don't try to tell me that this is any common understanding of what respect in their core mandate means.

I think there is a huge difference between respect, which should be encouraged and agrement not to oppose which ought to be legally mandated. Conflating the two impoverishes the concepts of both.

So either a trap or shitty communications that they walked back.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Gee cco. You just don't get it.

Are you even aware that it was some of those sexist homophobes who draughted the first petition that resulted in our Bill of Rights? And they were persecuted not because of their discriminatory beliefs, but because of their refusal to fight in nationalist wars.

So yes, an attack on any of us - even people we disagree with -  is an attack on all of us. At least they understood that well enough to petition for our rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Ca...

And this isn't about funding homophobia and sexism and building whites only buildings. That is not true.

 

cco

I'm actually quite aware of the JW history (Roncarelli was the first case in one of my long-ago law courses). Note that none of those Bill-enumerated rights is the right to have the government pay for your summer interns. But hey, if Trudeau reintroduces conscription, I guess I'll be struggling alongside the JWs on something, instead of struggling to get past them at the metro turnstiles.

Unionist

cco wrote:

I'm actually quite aware of the JW history (Roncarelli was the first case in one of my long-ago law courses). Note that none of those Bill-enumerated rights is the right to have the government pay for your summer interns. But hey, if Trudeau reintroduces conscription, I guess I'll be struggling alongside the JWs on something, instead of struggling to get past them at the metro turnstiles.

Wish I'd said that, and in that way.

Pages