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

565 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Actually many of them aren't.

You're confusing mandate with level of success. The fact is, all religion's primary mandate is self-perpetuation. Some are more successful than others.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A church which considers a fetus to be alive is going to have a difficult time signing a declaration that their core mandate - that all life is sacred - supports abortion.

That's not a mandate, that's a belief.

Quote:
Except they are the ones who are actually feeding and clothing people.

That's a mandate.

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

It would be nice if these churches argued for the government to provide basic income or other benefits to the needy directly. 

They do.

You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples. But it does require that you look.

Pondering wrote:

This won't impact charitable organizations ability to do anything they would normally do. They just won't be given money to hire students for the summer. As many or more students will still get work, which is the point of the program.

And this isn't true. I have administered these grants several times. In the case of both organizations we would not have been able to hire that person without the grant. It was work contingent on that funding that simply would not have gotten done.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think Pondering's point was that as long as someone gets funded for student jobs, students can have jobs.

Presumably, creating student jobs is the goal here?  Or the "mandate", if you will?

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It would be nice if these churches argued for the government to provide basic income or other benefits to the needy directly. 

They do.

You don't have to look far to find plenty of examples. But it does require that you look.

Pondering wrote:

This won't impact charitable organizations ability to do anything they would normally do. They just won't be given money to hire students for the summer. As many or more students will still get work, which is the point of the program.

And this isn't true. I have administered these grants several times. In the case of both organizations we would not have been able to hire that person without the grant. It was work contingent on that funding that simply would not have gotten done.

Obviously they can't hire another person to do EXTRA stuff. They can do what they normally do. 

The number of students being funded is going up so more students will get work.

It just won't be with organizations whose core mandate is against the rights of women to abort a pregnancy by choice or against the rights of gay people to marry. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually she said it won't affect organizations ability to do anything they ordinarily do.

In many cases that is not true. Like I said, we had an ongoing office position that was contingent on that funding. Without it stuff would not get done. I have been hired myself under that program several times. Also, a specific job.

Not only that, if you look at the form the mandate also includes service to idenfitiable groups or to the local community, as well as training. It isn't just about giving students jobs; it is just as much about the work and the skills training.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Actually she said it won't affect organizations ability to do anything they ordinarily do.

Ah.  I guess if they "ordinarily" cash grant cheques, they may not be able to do that.  But I hope their "mandate", whatever that means, is not completely contingent on receiving public money.  If they're a church, they can still pray, and sing songs, and pass that wicker plate, yes?  I'm guessing that's the "ordinarily do".

And if whatever those students do is part of what they "ordinarily do", well, I hate to beat a horse that's playing dead, but that's what a mandate is.  Does that help a little?

6079_Smith_W

No. It's actually no more accurate than the last time you repeated that trope.

The two groups I most recently worked with that used summer jobs grants were arts organizations. Both had core mandates to do with, not surprisingly, fostering and promoting the arts. In one case the summer works job was event ticketing. In the other it was going through the filing system in preparation for a historical project. As important as the projects might be, they were a bit too nuts and bolts to be included in the core principles.

No mention of printing tickets or filing as part of the organizations' purpose.

So even with non-religious organizations, this presumed equation of the organization's main purpose and values, and a job project is not always accurate.

I think if you looked at some of the groups and jobs which actually were shut out from funding rather than spinning stories about ironing Klan hoods you might have more of an appreciation of who lost out because of this.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Both had core mandates to do with, not surprisingly, fostering and promoting the arts.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable core mandate.

Were they rejected for funding because they ticked the box and claimed that as their mandate??

One might assume, reasonably, that any summer students hired would be furthering that entirely reasonable core mandate, yes?

Quote:
I think if you looked at some of the groups and jobs which actually were shut out from funding

I would love to know more about what those groups feel they must do.

Nevermind the summer student, stapling stuff.  Tell us more about the core mandates of those groups!  And why, if their core mandate was entirely compliant with the government's "free money" rules they felt uneasy about saying so, even when so many other groups were able to say 'we agree to this' and then go on to have a good night's sleep.

,

Pondering

 

The funds for the grant program are limited therefore if jobs with the organizations you are speaking of don't get funded other jobs will get funded. If the jobs you are referring to get funded, then the other jobs will not get funded. 

If the organizations core mandate includes opposing women's right to abort a pregancy or opposing equal rights for gay people then even if the jobs aren't directly connected to that mandate students are still exposed to that belief system. It condones the core mandate of an organization to be selected for public grant money. It sends the message to those students that those beliefs are generally acceptable. 

Refusing to fund such organizations sends the message that promoting those values is counter to the values expressed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada is not under any obligation to fund organizations whose core mandate includes arguing against those rights. 

Cody87

This discussion seems to be going in circles, so maybe I can clarify a point that hasn't been articulated yet.

 

There's a difference between 1. "Churches (or religious groups) shouldn't receive government funding because of their regressive beliefs" and 2. "Churches should only receive government funding if they are willing to falsify their beliefs in writing."

You can agree or disagree with 1. (I think most here would agree with 1, possibly including 6079_Smith_W) independently of whether you agree or disagree with 2. Many here are arguing #1 but that doesn't address the situation at hand, #2 does.

There's a BIG difference between a government that chooses to fund or not fund various groups for various activities for whatever reasons, and a government that attempts to use funding as leverage to force the leaders of organizations to violate their belief systems.

Anyway, consider the precedent this requirement sets. Do you really want the next Conservative government to have a precedent to be able to withhold funding from entire sectors (environmentalists, feminist groups, minority religious groups, etc) unless they agree to support the Conservative's values in writing "but don't worry it's just a check box it doesn't mean anything"?

"Oh, a feminist group that's working to get more women into computer science and engineering? Sure, you can keep your funding...but only if you tick this box that affirms you don't believe in the wage gap. Don't worry, you don't have to change your behaviour, we just want you to publicly falsify your beliefs to remind you who's boss and so you'll look like money-hungry hypocrites with no principles."

6079_Smith_W

Well that's not what the government said, Pondering.

They said it was about the activity and that, for example, Catholic service groups were not shut out because of their beliefs. Problem is they didn't change the wording to make that clear, and our PM just left it to the organizations affected by their blunder to deal with it.

As for not exposing people to that belief system, as you put it, I'd suggest re-reading what Paul Martin had to say about it in passing marriage equality into law:

https://www.dailyxtra.com/speech-by-prime-minister-paul-martin-39400

Do you think Justing Trudeaus grandstanding is showing good faith to that pledge?

And Magoo, if you'd "love to know more" maybe you should have taken the time to read the articles and posts which included some of those stories. If you are serious let me know when you have done so.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
here's a BIG difference between a government that chooses to fund or not fund various groups for various activities for whatever reasons, and a government that attempts to use funding as leverage to force the leaders of organizations to violate their belief systems.

Mandates and beliefs aren't the same, and the government even gave examples to explain it.

Quote:
Do you really want the next Conservative government to have a precedent to be able to withhold funding from entire sectors (environmentalists, feminist groups, minority religious groups, etc) unless they agree to support the Conservative's values in writing "but don't worry it's just a check box it doesn't mean anything"?

The Charter isn't any particular government's "values".

6079_Smith_W

@ Cody87

I agree, and in fact we did see Harper target groups.

I think Trudeau has a better leg to stand on because no, funding should not go to activities which undermine Charter rights. Problem is when their intrusive and inaccurate language was pointed out they dug their heels in rather than take reasonable steps to make it right.  Same for the NDP.

As for those who are taking this as a cue to attack churches generally, that attitude is no better than the zealots on the religious side, and frankly they deserve each other. Unfortunately I think that attitude isn't going to bring any resolution, and it undoes a lot of good work by people in the middle who have been working together between these communities.

I'll repeat again that I think there will be a price to be paid at election time for this, as there was for the way the Liberals brought in gun control.

 

 

Pondering

Cody87 wrote:
 Anyway, consider the precedent this requirement sets. Do you really want the next Conservative government to have a precedent to be able to withhold funding from entire sectors (environmentalists, feminist groups, minority religious groups, etc) unless they agree to support the Conservative's values in writing "but don't worry it's just a check box it doesn't mean anything"?

"Oh, a feminist group that's working to get more women into computer science and engineering? Sure, you can keep your funding...but only if you tick this box that affirms you don't believe in the wage gap. Don't worry, you don't have to change your behaviour, we just want you to publicly falsify your beliefs to remind you who's boss and so you'll look like money-hungry hypocrites with no principles."

Are you familiar with the charter of Rights and Freedoms? None of the things you listed run counter to it as far as I know. 

CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Nothing in there about beliefs. If an organization does not respect these individual rights they shouldn't receive public funds. 

Note, I am strongly against Quebec separation, but I respect the right of Quebecers to make that choice. 

It is not a partisan issue. It is not about support Liberal values or political stances. It's about respecting individual rights. 

 

6079_Smith_W

Harper may not have had the Charter, but he did have "political activity" which means anything a government wants it to mean, actually.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/preventing-poverty-not-a-valid-goal-for-...

Cody87

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The Charter isn't any particular government's "values".

How it's interpreted is.

SocialJustice101

The government can chose which advocacy actitivies it choses to support, unbound by the Charter.   Since we already know for sure that Cons use their power to undermine women's rights and environmentalists, and give money to the religious right, we might as well enjoy our time under the sun as progressives or moderates, whatever floats your boat.     It would be an extremely naive and absolutely pointless gesture to fund the reprehensible so-con group in the hopes that the Cons will reciprocate.   They will not.   Just fight hard to ensure another Con government will not happen any time soon.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

Well that's not what the government said, Pondering.

They said it was about the activity and that, for example, Catholic service groups were not shut out because of their beliefs. Problem is they didn't change the wording to make that clear, and our PM just left it to the organizations affected by their blunder to deal with it. 

They never used the word "beliefs".  That some organizations decided to interpret it that way even after being told that is not what it meant is on them. I doubt whatever the wording is changed to won't be acceptable either. They can't agree to anything that requires them to respect the rights enumerated. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
   https://www.dailyxtra.com/speech-by-prime-minister-paul-martin-39400

Do you think Justing Trudeaus grandstanding is showing good faith to that pledge?  

Yes. No rights are being taken away from religious organizations nor was it his pledge. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  As for not exposing people to that belief system, as you put it, I'd suggest re-reading what Paul Martin had to say about it in passing marriage equality into law:  

Not getting your point. Organizations are free to expose people to whatever beliefs they choose to, they just won't be paid to do it. When government funds an organization they tacitly condone it. That sents the message to the students that the government condones disrespecting the rights enumerated. 

I agree that the Liberals did this on purpose for political gain. This was virtue signaling. That's a separate issue from whether or not such organizations should be funded. In my opinion, they shouldn't be.  There are other limitations.

  • By way of five national priorities, CSJ 2018 supports the following:
  •  Employers who intend to hire youth who are in underrepresented groups, including new immigrant youth/refugees, Indigenous youth, youth with disabilities and visible minorities.
  •  Small businesses, in recognition of their contribution to the creation of jobs
  •  Organizations that support opportunities for official language minority communities 
  • Organizations that provide services and/or supports for the LGBTQ2 community
  •  Organization that support opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and information and communications technology (ICT), particularly for women. 

The program is being directed at 5 national priorities. The second to last mentions the LBGTQ community as one of those priorities. If an organization has  as part of their core mandate the goal of fighting against LBGTQ rights it would be self-defeating to fund them. 

Cody87

Pondering wrote:

Cody87 wrote:
 Anyway, consider the precedent this requirement sets. Do you really want the next Conservative government to have a precedent to be able to withhold funding from entire sectors (environmentalists, feminist groups, minority religious groups, etc) unless they agree to support the Conservative's values in writing "but don't worry it's just a check box it doesn't mean anything"?

"Oh, a feminist group that's working to get more women into computer science and engineering? Sure, you can keep your funding...but only if you tick this box that affirms you don't believe in the wage gap. Don't worry, you don't have to change your behaviour, we just want you to publicly falsify your beliefs to remind you who's boss and so you'll look like money-hungry hypocrites with no principles."

Are you familiar with the charter of Rights and Freedoms? None of the things you listed run counter to it as far as I know. 

CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

Nothing in there about beliefs. If an organization does not respect these individual rights they shouldn't receive public funds. 

...

It is not a partisan issue. It is not about support Liberal values or political stances. It's about respecting individual rights. 

I've tried a few different things, but I can't respond to this without repeating arguments that a) I don't personally agree with(which on it's own I'm okay with depending on the nature of the topic, but not this one), b) are against Babble's rules, and c) everyone here has already heard at some point anyway.

So basically all I will say is that two groups (say, political parties) can agree on respecting the charter but interpret what specifc rights it grants in very different ways.

SocialJustice101

The government uses the Charter to make their case, but it's in no way required.   They could have simply mentioned their government priorities, such as combating LBTG prejudice and supporting women's rights.   No further justification is technically needed.   The CSJ program is not an essential service.  It is a program to further government priorities.

6079_Smith_W

SocialJustice101 wrote:

No further justification is technically needed.   The CSJ program is not an essential service.  It is a program to further government priorities.

You really think so?

So you will consider it fair game if Andrew Scheer turns around re-opens funding to groups doing anti-abortion work? And uses the CRA to purge charities again?

Making any program a partisan tool of the government is the most dangerous thing about this, actually. And being okay with the government using this as a hammer is no different than those zealots in churches who want their service work only according to dogma.

And Pondering, you can consider that an answer to your comments as well. Again, this is not in the spirit of what Paul Martin said. That Justin Trudeau isn't using his position to try and truly resolve these differences says something about his maturity as a leader.

 

 

SocialJustice101

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So you will consider it fair game if Andrew Scheer turns around re-opens funding to groups doing anti-abortion work? And uses the CRA to purge charities again?

There's absolutely nothing in the BNA Act/Charter or any other law that prevents it.   We deserve governments we elect.   (Too bad the electoral system is deeply flawed.)

6079_Smith_W

The BNA Act is no longer in force. 

And no, the people who suffer the most from these decisions don't deserve it at all; this actually isn't a game. That's the kind of nonsense I am used to hearing from Slavoj Žižek.

 

SocialJustice101

Smith, the BNA Act (a.k.a. Constitution Act 1867)  is still a part of our constitution, along with Charter.  Look it up.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canada

6079_Smith_W

It's the Constitution Act now, SJ101.

And it is a new piece of legislation because it was passed by our parliament, not the British one. The Acts weren't just renamed and amended.

 

 

SocialJustice101

Progressive institutions / individuals don't deserve it, especially if they fought hard to stop a Con government, but "we" as a society do.

Regardless of what the Liberals do, the Cons will throw "meat" to their base, and try to disarm progressive groups.   The "precedent" was set before Trudeau.

6079_Smith_W

And what do you call this smart move on Trudeau's part if not throwing meat at their base? Just like they did by putting Allan Rock in charge of passing the gun registry. Where did that end? With an emboldened right and repeal.

This is not the smart way to govern. The Liberals bear full responsibility for driving this wedge in, and the NDP are fools for backing them up in it. What it says to the Tories is that all their abuses under Harper were fair, and they can do it again. That's what Trudeau did.

 

 

Rev Pesky

Has it occurred to you, 6079_Smith_W, that any government actions could be described as 'throwing meat to the base'? I mean, the reason for political parties is to run in, and win, elections so the program of the party can be implemented. Further, some parts of those programs are going to not sit well with some people. That is just the way it is.

The task isn't to achieve consensus on issues, that would be impossible. It would mean no party forming the government could do anything. What you do need to do is convince a majority of the population that your program is the correct one, and if some people remain opposed to it, too bad for them.

The most important thing is to remember the political right doesn't need an excuse to implement their program, all they need is the authority. By suggesting the political left should never do anything to 'rile' the political right puts the left at a serious disadvantage.

And the religious don't need an excuse to feel marginalized (as unmarginalized as they are in this country), that is built into their religion. 

6079_Smith_W

Well no, not every government action is throwing meat. Throwing meat means doing something to get your base whipped up about an issue. And that is the situation Trudeau has left us with on both sides. Probably moreso on the religious side at this point, actually.

The weird thing is the Liberals talked like they wanted to accommodate - that there was no intention to shut out churches, that the words really meant the job being done, that the form will be changed next year.

But then, whether because of their pride, or ignorance, or bureaucratic thinking or just a reflex to bash people they probably consider enemies, they didn't do the right thing and accept applications that didn't have that box checked.

And of course they didn't apologize for their mistake and the confusion and distress it caused. And for the jobs lost and the people who are going without services. It's not actally on the people put out by this to fix it; that is the job of a wise political leader, and the Liberals screwed up.

The NDP didn't do any better by reversing their original sensible position, and then even though they admitted the wording was unclear and causing problems, decided to back up the Liberals anyway.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

No further justification is technically needed.   The CSJ program is not an essential service.  It is a program to further government priorities.

You really think so?

So you will consider it fair game if Andrew Scheer turns around re-opens funding to groups doing anti-abortion work? And uses the CRA to purge charities again? 

I wouldn't like it, I would argue against it, but not against the right of the government to decide what to fund and what not to fund. We are maturing into a society that has a deep regard for individual rights and freedoms that continues to expand as cases go through the Supreme Court process. It is entirely reasonable for the government to have set priorities in program funding. It is how we advance as a society. 

Concerning what Scheer might do, we deserve the government we elect and we have the ability to get out and protest if we disagree with a particular action or position on an issue. 

Harper refused to get anywhere near the abortion topic. He stepped down on it hard. He knew that any attempt to pass legislation over a particular medical procedure, abortion, would result in massive demonstrations across Canada. I certainly don't see Scheer winning a majority. If he does win a majority I think he will follow in Harper's footsteps no matter what he says now. 

 

SocialJustice101

If your base is not "whipped up" about an issue, it's probably not an important issue at all.   Even something as symbolic as the gender-neutral national anthem riled up the Conservatives.

Wording is rarely perfect in any law, and can be easily misconstrued in most cases.  There's nothing to apologize for, as they issued a very detailed clarification with examples, with further clarification to be included in the next year's application.  But I'm sure even "core activities" will be considered "blasphemous" by some religious groups.  Mark my words.   If they don't feel comfortable at point, then they should just go on without the CSJ grant.   Churches are already tax exempt and very priveleged.

6079_Smith_W

You think Harper didn't go anywhere the topic? He cut funding to it, in fact.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-urges-united-nation...

He only steered clear of it to the degree he thought he needed to to not hurt him at the ballot box. He didn't discipline his mouthiest caucus members - Brad Trost and Maurice Vellacott - for openly calling him out on the issue, probably because they were serving his interests by throwing that meat in a situation where he knew he could not.

And he picked an openly anti-abortion MP for status of women chair. And cut Status of Women funding by 37 percent.

He didn't stop his MPs from tabling wedge motions on the issue:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-preposterous-politics-of-fem...

And why did the Liberals take this measure again? Because Tory MPs were recommending explicitly anti-abortion projects for funding.

The Tories will go as far as they think they can on this issue, which means further if it is measures that only affect people overseas.

Again, people who think this is not going to get used as a rallying point on this issue are fooling themselves. If the Tories can cut refugees off medical care entirely they can do anything.

6079_Smith_W

Privileged?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-quebec-congregations-rall...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/for-sale-signs-third-avenue-unit...

I think those who are having an ideological reaction here aren't aware of the role these communities, and their infrastructure play, particularly in small communities. But even in the cities there is a crisis,  as these groups are still playing a vital role - as concert venue, school, daycare, office space, and centre for political organizing. There are several refugee families that have been sponsored and brought to Saskatoon in recent months. Guess who is welcoming and supporting them?

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well no, not every government action is throwing meat. Throwing meat means doing something to get your base whipped up about an issue. And that is the situation Trudeau has left us with on both sides. Probably moreso on the religious side at this point, actually.

The weird thing is the Liberals talked like they wanted to accommodate - that there was no intention to shut out churches, that the words really meant the job being done, that the form will be changed next year.

But then, whether because of their pride, or ignorance, or bureaucratic thinking or just a reflex to bash people they probably consider enemies, they didn't do the right thing and accept applications that didn't have that box checked.

I don't want Evangelical churches to be funded any more than I would want a Nazi organization funded. Evangelical churches actively argue against homosexuality and want laws against abortion. 

This is what the evangelicals want:

On March 19 MPs voted on a motion on the Canada Summer Jobs program, a disappointing 93 in favour to 207 against. The motion would have affirmed that organizations that do non-political, non-activist work should be able to access summer student funding regardless of their private convictions and whether or not they sign the attestation of values and beliefs.

http://rabble.ca/comment/reply/143471/5387906?quote=1#comment-form

Organizations don't have private convictions or if they do nobody knows about them so private convictions are a non-issue. 

As to throwing meat to a base, this isn't that. Women have reproductive freedom in Canada. It would be wrong, in my view, to fund organizations that actively oppose reproductive freedom for women or oppose equal rights for homosexuals. That some of those organizations are religious is immaterial. 

This does not in any way curtail freedom of religion. Churches can still preach whatever they want.

SocialJustice101

Smith, yes a Con government could do anything, even use the Notwithstanding Clause to disregard the Charter if necessary.    That doesn't mean the Libs should just do nothing in fear of "retaliation" by a future Con government.  The Libs should do as much as they can for progressives.   Some of it will stick regardless of governing party.  Even the Cons pretend to support the Lib-NDP healthcare now.

6079_Smith_W

Not just evangelicals. I think Catholic organizations lost out most.

I am disappointed that motion did not pass. Several MPs - NDP, Green, and Liberal - who were not Conservative voted for it.

Mostly I am disappointed that the Liberals gave the Conservatives the opportunity to table it at all. Am I going to get asked again if I think Nazis should get funding because of my position (since you mention them again)?

 

SocialJustice101

Why would anyone block a non-binding motion?   That would be viewed as censorship in Parliament.  Only 6 non-Con MPs voted for the motion.  I would not call that multi-partisan support.  

6079_Smith_W

No, but it is an illustration of the fact that not only evangelicals opposed what the Liberals did. Plenty of people who are pro-choice and pro-LGBT (including me) opposed it as well.

And I know we have drifted, but remember this thread was started because the NDP whipped their vote, so I am sure some felt they had little choice but to oppose. Speaking of censorship.

 

 

SocialJustice101

Many people just don't understand the difference between free speech and getting government money to facilitate your speech.   The Cons took advantage of people's ignorance as always.  I still recall their bogus anti-coalition rhetoric.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Privileged?

Followed by links to a couple of articles that had nothing at all to do with the level of privilege that religion has in this country. That's stretching, even for you.

Also as noted above by SocialJustice101, there is a difference between free speech, and getting paid for it. Interestingly, this came up in the issue of the school shooting in the USA. Laura Ingraham publicly sneered at some of the school students, one of whom replied by telling people to boycott her advertisers.

That resulted in Ingraham taking some 'time off', but the right-wing in the USA complained that she was losing her freedom of speech. Very similar to the point you're trying to make.

Ingaham hasn't lost her freedom of speech, and the conservative religions of Canada haven't lost their ability to engage in whatever programs and activities they want to. What they may have lost is taxpayer funding for those activities. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But even in the cities there is a crisis,  as these groups are still playing a vital role - as concert venue, school, daycare, office space, and centre for political organizing. There are several refugee families that have been sponsored and brought to Saskatoon in recent months. Guess who is welcoming and supporting them?

More perfectly legitimate mandates.  Not sure why any of them would make it impossible to check a box.

SocialJustice101

Because it's the "devil's box" and totally "blasphemous."  What else did you expect from institutions that still treat women as second rate?    Good luck coming up with wording that would satisfy them.   They are asking for the attestation to be completely removed, not reworded.

Sean in Ottawa

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Because it's the "devil's box" and totally "blasphemous."  What else did you expect from institutions that still treat women as second rate?    Good luck coming up with wording that would satisfy them.   They are asking for the attestation to be completely removed, not reworded.

Do you see your contradiction?

"institutions that still treat women as second rate" -- your argument suggests that the core mandate is not to agree with these rights. I have to agree. This is why there is a legitimate argument -- considering how much service delivery comes from them -- to focus on behaviour rather than any of this core stuff. sure the Catholic Chirch for example can say that it respects the charter rights but I am sure not the only one hjere that would call that a lie.

So there is the policy decision to either focus on the behaviour around the position and what they do (the wording of the website) or the suggested meaning of the form which certainly would imply that they do not qualify (same with many organizations).

And why draw this line here?

Here is a better one: why not make it so that any religious charity status is revked for any organization advocating against any charter right. Period. Why do I subsidize donations for that? I agree with the website definition -- I just think it should include charitable donations. To me that would be more effective than trying to determine a defined reading of core mandates into a common language meaing of core mandate that provides an apparent contradiction. We have organizations with charitable status advocating agaisnt Charter rights. Why would we want a test of definitions of respect in core mandates before we outlaw any subsidy to any organization advocatng against any Charter right?

So let's applaud the wording of the website which is rasonable and ask for wider application  AND a clear form that makes clear exactly what you can and cannot do. there was no reason to put this in vague terms on the form and then clear on a website published much later. The website definition is not that long and could largely be on the form without taking additional space.

This is why it looks to me like a walk-back or a political trap rather than an honest attempt for compliance.

Now when it comes to subsidizing opinions that are offensive -- with some limitations this can be done within political parties. There is no reason why the government has to allow any charitable donations to any organization that does not meet this website's limitation for government jobs subsidies.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Because it's the "devil's box" and totally "blasphemous."  What else did you expect from institutions that still treat women as second rate?

The giant irony here is that we should all respect these groups' Charter rights.  Even as they pretend they don't understand common words (even with adequate explanation) and act like "the real victims",  and even as none of this infringes on their actual Charter rights to Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Conscience (if you believe that an organzation has a "conscience) they expect everyone else to check some box that they won't.

Well, not even "won't" to hear them tell it.  "Cannot!"  Gosh, it's not even their choice or anything!

It's been a long time since I've heard the old trope that we must be tolerant of intolerance, lest we be the "real" intolerant ones.  How come we don't see right through that any more?

6079_Smith_W

Rev Pesky wrote:

From 6079_Smith_W:

Privileged?

Followed by links to a couple of articles that had nothing at all to do with the level of privilege that religion has in this country. That's stretching, even for you.

Only if you don't bother to read what is stated clearly in the articles.

In fact many of them are hurting for money, just as the articles point out. Those which own their own buildings also rent them out for space, and they hold fundraisers to keep the heat on and to deliver services to the community. You have information to the contrary, feel free to post it, but it doesn't change the fact this is the reality for a lot of mainstream denominations.

Rev Pesky

From Sean in Ottawa, responding to SocialJustice101:

"institutions that still treat women as second rate" -- your argument suggests that the core mandate is not to agree with these rights. I have to agree.

Your confusing accepted practice with core mandate.

However, I do agree we should end the tax-free status of all religions.

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

It's been a long time since I've heard the old trope that we must be tolerant of intolerance, lest we be the "real" intolerant ones.  How come we don't see right through that any more?

Hey, that's a good one. Mind if I use it next time someone asks for a special space where we aren't supposed to mention  systemic racism?

But actually, it's not quite the same thing. With a very few exceptions, political beliefs are protected. And religious beliefs too. You only contravene the Charter (in spirit anyway) if you try to impose those beliefs on others.

It's actually a good thing that we can't force everyone to think like us. Though good luck if you think the best way to change those values is to squeeze them financially and compare them to the KKK.

Personally I thought a lot of this was already covered under existing human rights legislation. If people are doing these terrible discriminatory things why isn't anyone *gasp* using the Charter to stop them?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Personally I thought a lot of this was already covered under existing human rights legislation. If people are doing these terrible discriminatory things why isn't anyone *gasp* using the Charter to stop them?

Why do we have to attest, on our tax form, that we're telling the truth?  Why not just let the government catch us if they can?

Just my off-the-cuff guess, but maybe attesting to something (that you know is not true) would make it a bit easier for the government to follow up if it seems like you lied.

Half of this thread seems to revolve around people saying they cannot understand what common words mean, even when those words are explained.  Asking people to say, beforehand, that they understand them and agree to them means so much less stupid later.

Ever install software?  Ever notice how if you don't tick the "I agree to the terms and conditions" box, the software doesn't install?  Same thing.

Cody87

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 Though good luck if you think the best way to change those values is to squeeze them financially and compare them to the KKK.

Exactly.

But, I think the goal is not to change those values. The goal is the hurt the groups with the bad values.  In a similar vein, you've made reference to the important services these groups provide, especially in smaller communities. I suggest that the purpose of this attestation is not to help women or those small communities, but again, to hurt the bad people. After all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.

I believe this controversy was deliberately manufactured to create a boogeyman and a sense that reproductive rights are under attack, to the benefit of the Liberals who wish to continue presenting themselves as the champions of feminism. Of course it has backfired, because the Liberals have shown to be staggeringly ignorant of the shifting cultural climate and in particular the complicated nuance of the public support for pro-choice (about half of people who consider themselves pro-choice still support some degree of restrictions, and more women support restrictions or a full ban than men).

Pages