Trudeau government stands firm in clash with faith-based groups over summer jobs

They are not being asked about the cherry festival.  They are being asked about the group’s core mission.  Doesn’t seem that he’s the one pretending they were asked something they were not.

I'm just addressing the claims made upthread that all these groups will find the money somewhere else, Magoo. And the claim that this is just covert money for anti-choice propaganda. No they won't, and no it isn't.

Quote:

I'm just addressing the claims made upthread that all these groups will find the money somewhere else, Magoo.

I think the only claim was that they could.  Otherwise, if the program were simply scrapped by the next government, they'd all have to fold up tent?

You're confusing "they wouldn't" with "they couldn't".  I have a very difficult time believing that an event of this scale simply cannot proceed without a teenager to run it.

Quote:

If they attested that opposing abortion is not part of their “core mission.”

Is that their core mission, josh?  Is actively seeking to prevent women's choice a significant part of their activities, outside of cherry festivals?

And my guess is you have never been to Bruno SK, if you think a local organization there has some kind of pull with the Vatican. In case you haven't noticed, even churches are closing up shop everywhere, never mind small festivals.

 

I guess you haven't had to raise funds for a job position either.

My point was in answer to the idea floated here that if these groups didn't get this money from CSJ they would just find it somewhere else.

Well no, in fact some of them have not. And in this case, the entire event which had nothing to do with anti-choice work, has been cancelled.

I don't get why they couldn't sign the attestation that the cherry festival was not about promoting anti-choice or anti-LGBT positions that the affiliated church might hold. Do they brand the event as a celebration of the values of their church? Not a great marketing strategy for a summer (tourism) festival.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Have no idea.  Just as I have no idea what core mission is supposed to mean.

And yet you express a deep understanding of so many more complicated things.

But if you really have no idea what their core mandate is, why do you feel that they couldn't have stated that their core mandate wasn't to oppose women's choice?

When the government says:

Quote:

A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs would be eligible for funding to hire students to serve meals to the homeless, for example.

I would think that should make it clear that "beliefs" aren't being judged, only actions.  Surely everyone knows the difference between beliefs and actions, yes?  Aren't those both common English words, a mere Google away from those with a small vocabulary?

 

Core mission is by common definition an organization’s purpose.  That can be belief or action, or both.

Hm. Well I guess you haven't done much event planning either. That festival might be the better part of a century old, but even factoring in something like the internet, and the withdrawal of tobacco industry sponsorship (a big one), it is a lot more complicated now than it was even two decades ago, the first time I worked on one.

And as I said already, the most recent jobs we got summer works grants for simply would not have been done without it.

Really, I think you are missing a pretty simple point. There was a lot of talk in these threads about this being money that could potentially be moved around, and that these were jobs these organizations would find a way to do anyway.

The cancellation of this festival is clear evidence that this is not true in all cases, much as you want to insist that they should have just signed the application. In some cases these were things which simply do not happen without the grant.

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

I guess you haven't had to raise funds for a job position either.

Right, yes, I haven't.  So I guess that means I can't understand why a group that has money to fight women's choice can't hire a student?

Or, wait, they're NOT fighting women's choice?  THEN THEY CAN HAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.

Quote:

And in this case, the entire event which had nothing to do with anti-choice work, has been cancelled.

It was cancelled because the organizers were, for whatever reason, unwilling to say what you just said:  the entire event had nothing to do with anti-choice work.

Why, if this event is important, wouldn't they just say what you believe to be the truth??

If all that stands between me and the government funding I need is for me to say that I'm not planning to use the money to try to contact Aliens, I will definitely say that I'm not planning to use the money to contact Aliens.

Why would I not do that, Smith?

This topic which has gone on for 6 months still has some of the same people pretending the document says things other than what it said.

The requirement does seek an assertion about the intent of the event. It seeks an assertion about what is or is not a part of the core mandate of the organization.  In some cases with complex organizations it may even require an interpretation of what the organization is (divison of some sort or stand alone). While brilliant minds think they can easily define this, many others are making a valid point that this was set out as vague and it calls for an interpretation that for some people tasked with applying is beyond their mandate or the ability reasonably expected of them.

At issue here is a quesiton of competent policy communication. The government has the right to limit funding to activities it wants to support or organizations it wants to support when it comes to drawing a line on advocacy related to human rights. I don't think this is in serious doubt. However, what this government did in this case is write it so vaguely, contradict itself frequently, and make it so confusing that it remains unclear what the original intent and the effect of the document is. A statement ought to be clear to the person being asked to sign it. The government having a document saying one thing but offering its opinion of meaning is not entirely helpful since it is correctly a declaration of meaning from the person signing it. It contradicts the most basic element of contract writing which is that the contract should be clear to the person being asked to sign it.

If the intent is that the money for summer jobs funding should not be allowed to bleed into any advocacy against human rights then the government can clearly state that -- no business about core mandates etc. required -- just discussion about the activity and the contact employed people would have.

Otherwise, the government can exclude organizations it wants to based on their advocacy against human rights. Like it or not this is a legitimate choice.

Both have political and economic implications and clarity should be expected.

The use of language that forces interpretations of not only positions but what can be called core or not is stupid and wasteful. The government should not put something on a form that has to be interpreted to mean the opposite in a guiding paragraph in another document.

In this debate here we have had all kinds of discussion about the legitimacy or merit of the government doing one thing or the other. The other argument is that the government had an obligation to be clear from the start. It has not been honest about the fact that it has not done so. I personally think that the government could easily defend any of the interpretations about its intent -- but it shoudl stick to one and make sure that all language is consistent and written in a way that there is no doubt what a person is signing. This business of signing one thing with a paragraph in an interpretation document claiming it means something else is not fair or competent.

 

Quote:

While brilliant minds think they can easily define this, many others are making a valid point that this was set out as vague and it calls for an interpretation that for some people tasked with applying is beyond their mandate or the ability reasonably expected of them.

It actually is pretty simple.  All organizations need to do is ask themselves two questions:

1.  does what our organization ACTUALLY DOES include actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

2.  will the student we want to hire with this money be actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

If the answer to both is "no" then that's literally all there is to it.  The organization doesn't need a formal statement of Core Mandate, because they're not being asked to list all the things they DO.  They're being asked to confirm that they DON'T.

If someone asked me "What are your top 10 'bucket list' items, to do before you die?" I would admittedly have to think about it.  I don't have a ready-made 'bucket list'.  But if they asked "Would riding a donkey be on your top 10 'bucket list' items?" then I could easily answer "No".  Because it wouldn't be, and I know it wouldn't be.

Organizations know whether they're actively opposing reproductive or gay rights, Sean.  Really.  They know.

If a couple of groups misinterpret the wording of a document you may say they are just poor readers and it is their fault.  However when a significant group has trouble with the wording it is become harder to blame the groups and it becomes the fault of the government for writing a document that was not clear.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That said, I am not surprised this same drum is being banged. I suppose the truly progressive thing would be to stop funding roads into their communities and seal them off from decent society altogether. After all, we don't want our tax money going to people with those attitudes, even if it is to pick cherries, and even if they pay taxes themselves.

Not paying them to picket abortion clinics isn't the same as "sealing them off", no matter what gulag fantasies religious Canadians (again, the 76% majority) have concocted. But what's this about "pay[ing] taxes themselves"? Since when have churches paid taxes in Canada? Or have the goalposts been moved [i]yet again[/i], such that the fact [i]individuals[/i] who [i]go[/i] to church pay income taxes is to be used as a smokescreen to distract from the fact religious institutions are recipients of funds from, not contributors to, the government's budget? Because hey, people who work for corporations pay income taxes too (in fact, that was the original logic behind Mitt Romney's "Corporations are people" line), even if those corporations are oil producers, and nobody says that guarantees them subsidies.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

While brilliant minds think they can easily define this, many others are making a valid point that this was set out as vague and it calls for an interpretation that for some people tasked with applying is beyond their mandate or the ability reasonably expected of them.

It actually is pretty simple.  All organizations need to do is ask themselves two questions:

1.  does what our organization ACTUALLY DOES include actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

2.  will the student we want to hire with this money be actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

If the answer to both is "no" then that's literally all there is to it.  The organization doesn't need a formal statement of Core Mandate, because they're not being asked to list all the things they DO.  They're being asked to confirm that they DON'T.

If someone asked me "What are your top 10 'bucket list' items, to do before you die?" I would admittedly have to think about it.  I don't have a ready-made 'bucket list'.  But if they asked "Would riding a donkey be on your top 10 'bucket list' items?" then I could easily answer "No".  Because it wouldn't be, and I know it wouldn't be.

Organizations know whether they're actively opposing reproductive or gay rights, Sean.  Really.  They know.

If you asked me, "Would you quote a complete lengthy comment by Mr. Magoo, and agree with it enthusiastically?" - I'd likely demur. But in this case, I would like to fully, completely, 100% concur. He has "nailed" it.

 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

While brilliant minds think they can easily define this, many others are making a valid point that this was set out as vague and it calls for an interpretation that for some people tasked with applying is beyond their mandate or the ability reasonably expected of them.

It actually is pretty simple.  All organizations need to do is ask themselves two questions:

1.  does what our organization ACTUALLY DOES include actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

2.  will the student we want to hire with this money be actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

If the answer to both is "no" then that's literally all there is to it.  The organization doesn't need a formal statement of Core Mandate, because they're not being asked to list all the things they DO.  They're being asked to confirm that they DON'T.

If someone asked me "What are your top 10 'bucket list' items, to do before you die?" I would admittedly have to think about it.  I don't have a ready-made 'bucket list'.  But if they asked "Would riding a donkey be on your top 10 'bucket list' items?" then I could easily answer "No".  Because it wouldn't be, and I know it wouldn't be.

Organizations know whether they're actively opposing reproductive or gay rights, Sean.  Really.  They know.

Sure they know. The government is asking that question, not asking that question, wanting to include people who do this as a non-core activity, wnating to to exclude those for whom it is a non core activity.

We all can imagine clear questions but so what? The government does not have a clearly worded question that sounds like the same question on all three of:

1) all its communications on the topic

2) the form

3) the interpretation document.

The question itself is significantly less clear than your question as it relies on concepts of what is a core activity and what is the organization (this can be complicated in more complicated structures).

People have said that the government excluded anyone using your question and the government has directly denied that interpretation.

Yeah. Clear. As. Mud.

So Jesus turned water into whine!

Well you got the "show off" part right.

I guess they think barring people from public funding because they don't agree with them doesn't matter in the land of Vellacott and Trost. We'll see next year how that plays in ridings where some of these people helped get their candidates (and NDP candidates) elected.

And maybe some missed the article I posted upthread about some wanting to apply this tactic to others. How about ticking a box declaring that your organization's core mandate supports Canadian foreign policy and the existence of sovereign states, specifically Israel. Only whiners would have a problem with that, right?

Actually Nathan Cullen spoke up about it first, I believe. Then he got whipped back in to line.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If it's simply bad writing, or unclear wording, then we'd expect almost everyone to have trouble deciphering it.  If a traffic sign says "No Left Delay on Amber Turn" then everyone's going to need clarification.

So why do you suppose secular groups seem mostly able to make sense of it, but religions (and Catholic cherry fests) are all hornswoggled?

That is just silly.  The ambiguous part is the religous question and your reply is that hey the seculars have no problem.

Pogo wrote:

That is just silly.  The ambiguous part is the religous question and your reply is that hey the seculars have no problem.

There is no religious question. 

Pogo wrote:

The people who put on these events that are applying to funding are usually very committed to the event.  Often to the point of it being a key part of how they identify themselves. To say they would walk away from funding simply to prove a political point is crazy.  

They are more committed to promoting the tenets of the religion. The good works are intended to promote the religion even if indirectly. They want credit for the good works. Otherwise they could simply put the good works under an external organization and still contribute whatever money and effort goes into delivering the service. 

So, the XYZ Church could create a separate entitity called the ABC children's camp. The church could then contribute to that entity but the entity could make its own application for funding because it would have no trouble checking the box and signing the declaration. 

Pogo wrote:

 We need to build a society by finding points of consensus so that people of different views meet and interact and this decision works counter to that. 

The church people don't seem willing to "reach a consensus" with women who want full dominion over their bodies or LGBTQ people who want the same rights as anyone else. Religious people argue on the basis of superstitions which cannot by definition be argued against with logic. 

It's very much like pipeline supporters insisting they are willing  to negotiate while insisting the pipeline must go through. 

If these wonderful people are truly so dedicated to their good works they will do them without requiring that the credit goes to a religious organization. 

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

While brilliant minds think they can easily define this, many others are making a valid point that this was set out as vague and it calls for an interpretation that for some people tasked with applying is beyond their mandate or the ability reasonably expected of them.

It actually is pretty simple.  All organizations need to do is ask themselves two questions:

1.  does what our organization ACTUALLY DOES include actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

2.  will the student we want to hire with this money be actively opposing reproductive choice or LGBTQ rights?

If the answer to both is "no" then that's literally all there is to it.  The organization doesn't need a formal statement of Core Mandate, because they're not being asked to list all the things they DO.  They're being asked to confirm that they DON'T.

If someone asked me "What are your top 10 'bucket list' items, to do before you die?" I would admittedly have to think about it.  I don't have a ready-made 'bucket list'.  But if they asked "Would riding a donkey be on your top 10 'bucket list' items?" then I could easily answer "No".  Because it wouldn't be, and I know it wouldn't be.

Organizations know whether they're actively opposing reproductive or gay rights, Sean.  Really.  They know.

So in other words, they can believe what they want and get the money as long as they keep quiet about it.  If they publish a letter to the editor, is that speech or action.  If they sign a friend of the court brief, is that speech or action. 

On the coast there are several camps run by missions. How it works is that the assets are owned by a non profit foundation and run by volunteer missionaries.

The difference created by Herr Trudeau's dictat is that there is less funds to support non- paying children who would otherwise sponsored by the extra funds from these government programs. The camp councillors are all young  people and I don't know if they are paid or not. Trudeau is wrong. His zeal to punish those who dare to not to agree with his position on abortion is nothing short of fascism.

The missionaries live year around on the site and exist by raising their own food, cutting their own wood and raising local donations. Every dollar they raise goes into the kids. They are gentle people who are mildly religious and provide a wonderful experience to children, especially urban children. The kids who are missing out are the ones who cannot afford to go. Thanks, Mr. Dressup.

Martin N. wrote:

The difference created by Herr Trudeau's dictat is that there is less funds to support non- paying children who would otherwise sponsored by the extra funds from these government programs. The camp councillors are all young  people and I don't know if they are paid or not. Trudeau is wrong. His zeal to punish those who dare to not to agree with his position on abortion is nothing short of fascism.

Oh, sure. Just last week I walked by one of the death camps for Catholic priests who refused to perform abortions. When will this endless failure to sufficiently glorify and subsidize religion come to an end? Why, I hear in Ontario some children are actually allowed to attend secular schools these days. When will the 76% of religious Canadians be able to attend church and carry children to term without being jumped by street gangs of roving Liberals? Truly, ours is a dark time.

Quote:

So in other words, they can believe what they want and get the money as long as they keep quiet about it.

I know you're being facetious, but in fact the wording of the question means that yes, this is correct.  The government explicitly made it clear that beliefs are not being policed.

As to what's speech and what's action, I always ask myself "could I draw a clear (even if artistically lacking) picture of it?".  If so, it's probably action.  I can't draw a picture of someone "believing", but I could draw a picture of them putting pen to paper.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

So in other words, they can believe what they want and get the money as long as they keep quiet about it.

I know you're being facetious, but in fact the wording of the question means that yes, this is correct.  The government explicitly made it clear that beliefs are not being policed.

As to what's speech and what's action, I always ask myself "could I draw a clear (even if artistically lacking) picture of it?".  If so, it's probably action.  I can't draw a picture of someone "believing", but I could draw a picture of them putting pen to paper.

Well, now it’s apparently not a speech/action question.  It’s a thought/expression distinction.

@ josh

And there is also the difference between not actively opposing something (which really is what the Charter protects against) and supporting it.

I can be respectful of something and not oppose it without being in support of it. Being asked to declare the latter? Another twist of a knife.

Never mind that the attestation to support "values underlying the Charter" doesn't mean anything at all. And what "reproductive rights"? Canada's abortion law was struck down on the point of security of the person, and rightly so. But reading stuff into the Charter that isn't actually there is inviting a reopening of this can of worms that might not turn out the way Trudeau intends. Especially if Andrew Scheer doesn't have the same tight rein on his caucus as Stephen Harper did. Or if he actively pursues some of those anti-choice wedges that Harper held the line on.

Again, hubris.