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

Okay, I thought you meant you wanted to know if what he said was accurate.

He may have said more, but I think those are the main points. I know there was one comment about bowing and scraping and paying fealty, but that is essentially the same argument.

And there is his point about it being too important an issue to simply abstain.

Personally, I think his most important argument is about its effect on grassroots progressive work. In that it is not much different than Harper's ideological attacks on organizations.

Quote:

This is the trouble with arrogance. You think what is clear to you must be to all others and that what you think is true is universally accepted by others.

It's clear because the government defined it for the purpose of this form.

If a zoning exemption application form defines "fence" or "setback" or "dwelling", we don't get to substitute our own personal, colloquial understanding of what those terms mean.  They're defined specifically so we don't have to.

If enough people whined that they didn't like the size of the font, they'd probably change that too. 

Again, perhaps someone can explain why religious groups couldn't understand, but magically, everyone else seemed to understand.

If I could genuinely believe that the wording really was unintelligible, and that organziations were simply asking for clarification in good faith and were willing to proceed once that clarification was given, I'd see it differently.  But I really don't believe they're being honest.

Quote:

I think the point is the language is clear and people do not want to see it for what it is.

OK.  This is exactly the opposite of the prevailing thesis, which is that the wording was somehow too vague, and that organizations who simply couldn't agree to something they couldn't understand are being honest and acting in good faith.  I think we agree that the language was not unclear, in the context of a grant application.

Quote:

I think it is quite arrogant to dictate to these organizations our definition of core mandate in order to get them to agree to a wording designed for the purpose of politically excluding the people that we are pretending not to exclude as a matter of practicality.

This is where our opinions diverge.  First of all, nobody is obligated to use the government's definition of "mandate" or "respect" or any other word anywhere other than on this application.  I would have hoped it might be more obvious that we need to have some agreed upon definitions for the purposes of a form or a document or a bylaw or whatever.  A working definition of a term isn't being "dictated" to anyone. 

Do you consider a cash gift to be "income" like your paycheque is?  CRA does, and in the context of your tax form, they get to (and NEED to) define "income" so we're all on the same page, even if we don't refer to gifts as "income" in any other context.

As far as excluding organizations because they have cooties, I think the government's own example made it clear that's not what they're doing:

Quote:

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.

If this is really just an attempt to shut out the undesirables, even as they apparently do wonderful things, then the government isn't even trying.

Quote:

Such a mess of controversy without much of anything substantive and real coming out of it.

The good news is that, necessary or not, the government clarified, so I'm sure all those groups who were confused will now go ahead and re-apply, yes?  Problem solved?

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I think the point is the language is clear and people do not want to see it for what it is.

OK.  This is exactly the opposite of the prevailing thesis, which is that the wording was somehow too vague, and that organizations who simply couldn't agree to something they couldn't understand are being honest and acting in good faith.  I think we agree that the language was not unclear, in the context of a grant application.

Quote:

I think it is quite arrogant to dictate to these organizations our definition of core mandate in order to get them to agree to a wording designed for the purpose of politically excluding the people that we are pretending not to exclude as a matter of practicality.

This is where our opinions diverge.  First of all, nobody is obligated to use the government's definition of "mandate" or "respect" or any other word anywhere other than on this application.  I would have hoped it might be more obvious that we need to have some agreed upon definitions for the purposes of a form or a document or a bylaw or whatever.  A working definition of a term isn't being "dictated" to anyone. 

Do you consider a cash gift to be "income" like your paycheque is?  CRA does, and in the context of your tax form, they get to (and NEED to) define "income" so we're all on the same page, even if we don't refer to gifts as "income" in any other context.

As far as excluding organizations because they have cooties, I think the government's own example made it clear that's not what they're doing:

Quote:

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.

If this is really just an attempt to shut out the undesirables, even as they apparently do wonderful things, then the government isn't even trying.

Quote:

Such a mess of controversy without much of anything substantive and real coming out of it.

The good news is that, necessary or not, the government clarified, so I'm sure all those groups who were confused will now go ahead and re-apply, yes?  Problem solved?

First when I am saying it is clear-- it is clear that it involves more than people are pretending to involve. It is unclear if you try to make it out to be what the Liberals and some here are pretending it to be.  The contortion required to redefine cre mandate into not opposing was painful to see. So we disagree on where it is clear and where it is not.

It is not impossible to write texts using common language definitions. It is less than honest to write them and then redefine what the words mean in order to undo what you clearly started out to do.

The language gets unclear when they redefine it to mean something other than what the common language means. Part of the problem is that the government decided to define fro everyone else what there core mandates are which is exactly what the examples try to do.

No problem is nt solved if you wanted this text to mean anything. The government was caught in the fact that it could not do anything substantive on a form -- once they realized that they walked this back to nothingness.

So in sum the government has provided a pile of nothing to people who wanted something real from this. But the politics is to go around the mulberry bush alternately saying this is meanginful and then when that is uncomfortable say it isn't. a bit like an argument Monty Python style.

Quote:

It is unclear if you try to make it out to be what the Liberals and some here are pretending it to be.  The contortion required to redefine cre mandate into not opposing was painful to see. So we disagree on where it is clear and where it is not.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that was also pretty unclear.

The government said what they meant.  Organizations demanded clarification and the government provided it (whether I or others really felt that was necessary or not).  So, now what?

Quote:

It is not impossible to write texts using common language definitions.

Is there just the one?  I thought you were arguing that there can be many interpretations of a word or phrase.

Clearly a granting process like this has to operate with just one.

So is there just one meaning of "mandate" or "respect" and the government ignored it?  Or are there many interpretations of those words, in which case how would the government phrase things so as to make it more clear?

That was admirably lazy.

Regarding the threats to abortion services:

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/paula-simons-jason-kenney-...

Rev Pesky wrote:

You don't know what 'mandate' or 'respect' means? Really?

I do and there is more to it than the government -- after the fact -- is trying to make it.

And this limited definition does not really cover the original purpose.

Take one right:

If we exclude Churches who advocate against abortion for example based on the excuse that it is not their core mandate (even though the churches themselves say that you cannot divide their mandate in that way), then much of the problem this whole thing was supposed to prevent is unaddressed. If you exclude the religious organizations who advocate against abortion then you contradict the original point. All this depends on how you read a "primary activity" or "focused on."

So, for example, An organization that is a Church that campaigns against reproductive rights can qualify for support so long as they do not break off that part of their function into a free-standing organization to perform that effort.

Eventually they will eventually have to clarify the clarification.

Any group that has a primary activity of campaigning agaisnt certain rights only have to amalgamate with a larger organization so that this is not the primary activity and then they can continue as they were.

Using the definition of what the activity means to the organization instead of allowing or prohibiting the activity at all is a way of making this so fraught with loopholes that any organization can get around them by changing their structure.

And this is all based on the tight definition of what primary activity is since if you use a more encompassing one then you will catch what they apparently do not want to catch. also you could allow one organization to qualify and not another even though they are doing the exact same thing but are merely structured differently (one as an independent group and one as a part of another group claiming some other prime function and this as secondary).

The words themselves are not hard to understand -- it is the tortured interpretations that have to be applied to exclude some and not others or to make this seem like a big enough deal to be worthwhil but not so big as to actually mean anything. The venn diagrams barely meet. Only a handful of organizations would be captured by this if you present it in one way (and they could restructure to qualify) or many more are captured by this than the government wants to acknowledge.

From Michael Moriarity:

You have obviously never practiced law. Just saying.

​Strangely enough, when I was 16 years of age I defended myself against a charge of being a minor in possession of alcohol, and was acquitted. 

However, I respect what you're saying about law. After all, wasn't there a long argument about what 'is' meant? I suppose if long arguments can take place over the meaning of 'is', there can be arguments over the meaning of 'respect'. However, the government gave examples of what they meant. I had no trouble understanding those examples.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Regarding the threats to abortion services:

http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/paula-simons-jason-kenney-...

Good news but what is your point?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually it is really shitty news, since there is a good chance they will form government. And that seems to be your question of the day.

I still don't see any shitty news in there. The following is not true:

The mass UCP walkout made Kenney’s whole caucus look as though they oppose a woman’s right to a safe abortion — or a doctor’s right to live and work in safety. I don’t think every UCP MLA is an anti-choice zealot. But now they all look it. 

They didn't vote against. They walked out to avoid having to vote. Like Harper, Kenny knows better than to touch this topic with a 10 foot pole. If they voted for the bill the anti's would be furious. If they voted against it they would be accused of not caring about women's safety. Reform Conservatives pay lip service to social conservatives. They never roll anything back.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, you just have to look at Harper's cuts to foreign aid, and to women's organizations here at home to see that is not true at all. And this:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/12/20/thirty-years-after-morgen...

http://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/abortion-becomes-a-divisive-issue-...

http://www.morgentaler25years.ca/the-struggle-for-abortion-rights/access...

Harper might have made a calculated decision to hold the line at the federal level - though despite his control-freak style it is the one area in which he allowed MPs to oppose him. It is a different story for provinces, which actually control healthcare funding and administration.

Yet we have the Trudeau government resorting to ideological games on a front that has no concrete effect on access, while not enforcing the Canada Health Act on provinces that have put up real roadblocks that are in place right now.  Why? Because it is easier and sexier to target church projects, including ones which have nothing to do with the issue, than it is to hold the provinces to task on their responsibilities.

Yeah, they should do that too and a lot of other things too. I really don't care about the motivation of the Liberals or Trudeau. All I care about is outcomes. 

I don't see anything funny about it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Yeah, I expect it will be even less amusing when some of these people get into government again. As for this nonsense, I see how this bit of scapegoating gives the Liberals and NDP and anti-religious types an opportunity to beat their chests and feel morally superior.

I am not sure how withholding funding from a summer camp or an air show does anything at all to increase access to abortion services in places where there are serious limits to it. It doesn't even prevent those protesters from harrassing women.

But it seems to be making some people who would never personally engage in that kind of obstruction pay attention.

So yes, it is rather destructive window dressing in place of the real action our PM doesn't seem to have the guts for.

Those summer camps encourage indoctrination into a belief system that is against the rights of women to full  autonomy and against equal rights for people based on sexual orientation. They use good works to prove they are good people therefore their views can't be that bad. 

If people are really just interested in providing summer camps they should have no trouble making them non-denominational. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And that is worse than JT exploiting this issue to make himself look good while doing fuck all of substance?

How?

It isn't. I'm not defending Trudeau. I don't have to pick one to support, Trudeau or churches. I can support neither. The outcome, money not going to organizations that are against equal rights based on sexual orientation, is positive. That is what I support. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And that is worse than JT exploiting this issue to make himself look good while doing fuck all of substance?

How?

It isn't. I'm not defending Trudeau. I don't have to pick one to support, Trudeau or churches. I can support neither. The outcome, money not going to organizations that are against equal rights based on sexual orientation, is positive. That is what I support. 

Problem is, that is not the outcome. The fine print makes that clear. Any organization that has a bigger core mandate can get the money as the examples show.

Well apparently some were excluded otherwise they wouldn't be complaining. Every little bit counts. 

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And that is worse than JT exploiting this issue to make himself look good while doing fuck all of substance?

How?

It isn't. I'm not defending Trudeau. I don't have to pick one to support, Trudeau or churches. I can support neither. The outcome, money not going to organizations that are against equal rights based on sexual orientation, is positive. That is what I support. 

Problem is, that is not the outcome. The fine print makes that clear. Any organization that has a bigger core mandate can get the money as the examples show.

Well apparently some were excluded otherwise they wouldn't be complaining. Every little bit counts. 

I think some are excluded based on their structure rather than their activities. I don't think that is positive as restructuring (to be within a larger mandate so that it is no long core could solve the problem). I think the ones that are the most active are in fact the ones with other core mandates. I think that there is instead, for some, a thought that this is a slippery slope. You can see that many complaints are coming from organizations that if you accept the fine print would be excluded. The reason for this may in fact be that the government could amend that wording anytime.

This still does not look like a good way to do this.

It also does not deal with my concern about the reliance of groups with opinions such as these delivering social services. Public services leave gaps and having those closed by others with their own agendas is troublesome.  Closing all loopholes so that money does not support the same organization that is active agaisnt rights is the ultimate goal. It seems that the defence of this requirement is precisely that the loopholes are so broad.

Cartainly it is inconvenient as organizations will have to set up new structures to get around the rules but that is not how rules should work.

I would like to see alternatives presented and discussed from a progressive viewpoint that does a better job than this. -- and addresses any new gaps that could come from it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Caissa wrote:

The form requires self-reporting, thus self-excluding.

False statements on the form have penalties and individuals would have to be concerned and play it safe in any margin of interpretation.

Though I think it isn't the legal problems they are worried about, and they are right.  That is the biggest reason why this is such an insult. It unnecessarily puts the onus on the applicant.

I said way up this thread that if it had been left for them to declare the job description (which is in there already) it would have served their porpose. Whether by design or boneheaded pride this is something else.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And that is worse than JT exploiting this issue to make himself look good while doing fuck all of substance?

How?

It isn't. I'm not defending Trudeau. I don't have to pick one to support, Trudeau or churches. I can support neither. The outcome, money not going to organizations that are against equal rights based on sexual orientation, is positive. That is what I support. 

Problem is, that is not the outcome. The fine print makes that clear. Any organization that has a bigger core mandate can get the money as the examples show.

Well apparently some were excluded otherwise they wouldn't be complaining. Every little bit counts. 

I think some are excluded based on their structure rather than their activities. I don't think that is positive as restructuring (to be within a larger mandate so that it is no long core could solve the problem). I think the ones that are the most active are in fact the ones with other core mandates. I think that there is instead, for some, a thought that this is a slippery slope. You can see that many complaints are coming from organizations that if you accept the fine print would be excluded. The reason for this may in fact be that the government could amend that wording anytime.

This still does not look like a good way to do this.

It also does not deal with my concern about the reliance of groups with opinions such as these delivering social services. Public services leave gaps and having those closed by others with their own agendas is troublesome.  Closing all loopholes so that money does not support the same organization that is active agaisnt rights is the ultimate goal. It seems that the defence of this requirement is precisely that the loopholes are so broad.

Cartainly it is inconvenient as organizations will have to set up new structures to get around the rules but that is not how rules should work.

I would like to see alternatives presented and discussed from a progressive viewpoint that does a better job than this. -- and addresses any new gaps that could come from it.

I make no distinction between active and non-active nor whether or not it is part of their core mandate. If on Sundays they preach to the congregation that same sex relations are bad and that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry I don't want them getting money to support a summer camp even if there is no preaching on the topic at the camp. 

The government has the right to set whatever criteria it wants. It could say only big companies, or only places that include physical activity, or only for groups that are non-vegetarian. They would be criticized for it but it doesn't abuse anyone's rights because there is no right to government funding. It does not infringe on religious freedom. 

What is the point of discussing alternatives? It's not a major issue. It won't get the NDP elected. It won't affect what the Liberals do one way or another. It would just be an intellectual exercise not that there is anything wrong with that. 

Mr. Magoo, according to the National Post, the board of the Great Lakes Air Show could not sign the attestation.   They probably have some staunch conservatives/religious people on the board who wanted to make a point.

Here's a thought...how about a feminist organization applies for that funding and to run the next Great Lakes Air Show instead? Then whatever organizational values are transmitted to the general population, will be in line with the Charter?

If we're so concerned about churches propagating their toxic beliefs through their "charity" work, why can't feminist or other progressive organizations pick up the slack from the churches through their own, much more pure-intentioned charity work?

Cody87 wrote:

If we're so concerned about churches propagating their toxic beliefs through their "charity" work, why can't feminist or other progressive organizations pick up the slack from the churches through their own, much more pure-intentioned charity work?

They already do, except they don't use charitable actitivies to recruit.   Have you ever volunteered for any non-religious charity?   I've never met a single conservative there.

Smith, anti-abortion actitivist groups received more than $5 Million of taxpayers dollars during the Harper government, while he was purging progressive organizations for any sign of advocacy.      If the Cons only fund right-wing advocacy groups, and the Libs remain neutral, guess which groups get more govenrment money in the long run?   Turning the other cheek isn't always the solution, especially when dealing with right-wingers.

Smith, you've misinterpreted the riding informaiton which is strangely compiled 2010-2017.  It was Con MPs who authorized the money, but Liberal MPs later took over those ridings in late 2015.

Also, the Pro-choice group's recommendation to provide additional explanation came BEFORE the government did just that on their website.