Singh now looks like a ditherer. How the hell is he going to negotiate on Canada's behalf if it is clear you can make him back down?
Singh would have got more respect by holding firm on a "wrong" decision than to change it to a "right" decision. It would have been forgotten in a few weeks anyway. Now the NDP's opposition can say that Singh can't be trusted to stick to his word.
Bad.
Oh Pondering... poor Pondering... You're such a sycophantic Singh cheerleader bashing Angus but ignoring the facts: Angus was RIGHT! (And so were Christopherson, and Saganash, and Boulerice, and most likely others who spoke in private...) Singh backed down! He was wrong, and he finally admitted it and reinstated Christopherson. Just took some MP's taking this public to get Singh to admit he made a mistake. Who's to blame for making the party look bad? Not the MP's who took extraordinary means in order to make Singh pay attention, that's for sure!
They should have spoken to him privately before taking it to the media. Angus has taken a few cracks at Singh. If caucus had the power to anoint a leader they would not have chosen Singh. He was elected not anointed. They know he can't win the next election and they want to dump him as soon as it is over. It reminds me of the insurrection against Chretien to anoint Martin who promptly lost the next election.
Angus is not going to stop. He will continue using every excuse he can to criticize Singh publicly.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-mp-criticizes-leade...
Mr. Angus, who came second in last October’s leadership race, said the fallout from Mr. Singh’s decision to remove NDP MP David Christopherson as vice-chair of the powerful procedure and House affairs committee, has been “intense.”
“People are really stunned, because they don’t understand what the political agenda is by publicly attacking such a senior member of caucus,” Mr. Angus said in an interview. “It’s not how you treat someone who’s given so much of their life to the party and to building solidarity in the caucus. It shows a lack of respect.”
Mr. Angus said the decision to remove Mr. Christopherson from committee “should be reversed immediately.”
Angus is a sore loser. He does not want the NDP to be successful under Singh and he will do his utmost to undermine him every chance he gets. He addresses Singh through the media. Angus should be put out to pasture before he destroys what little hope the party has.
Saganash did the same thing. Should he be put out to pasture as well?
Maybe they first tried in private, but didn’t get anywhere.
Angus is not going to stop. He will continue using every excuse he can to criticize Singh publicly.
Well he does have a point. How is he connecting with ordinary Canadians when he is walking the red carpet at the Juno Awards? As Jagmeet was the one who called out Justin Trudeau for being an "elitist" and not understanding the concerns of ordinary Canadians. And then turns around enjoying the flash bulbs at the Juno Awards?
But that's why the NDP pooh bahs were so eager to make him leader. They think this "star pizzaz" is the NDP's ticket to victory. If they can only out Trudeau Trudeau, they'll be forming government. Forgetting that Trudeau is there because of the cache of his last name, not because he's Mr. GQ.
From Josh:
Forgetting that Trudeau is there because of the cache of his last name, not because he's Mr. GQ.
I don't think this is true. I remember hearing some Liberal (may have been Ralph Goodale) being interviewed in the days before Trudeau became leader of the Liberal Party. This person said something interesting about Trudeau. He said that he was a great campaigner, and was really good at dealing with people in that setting.
Given the love/hate relationship Canada had with Pierre Trudeau, the name would probably turn as many people away from voting Liberal as it would convince them to vote for the Liberals. I think what you have missed, as have others, is that Trudeau is a very good campaigner.
More accurately, Trudeau's campaign team was very good, especially their use of social media. He does have some natural charm and affability, but he was handled expertly by his team as well. And they got good bang for their bucks -- for a while before his election I couldn't go on Youtube without seeing him walking up an escalator.
The caucus should have been consulted before the original decision was made. This should have been an internal debate. Instead, MPs had to run to corporate media to get Singh to back down. It just looks unprofessional and creates negative publicity for the NDP.
I think better of Singh for reversing his decision. He made the wrong call, he listened to the caucus and did the right thing. That's the kind of leadership the NDP needs, and so much better than digging in his heels to demonstrate who's boss.
I agree as well. This was not the ground to fight on.
Party solidarity should be for things that are more concrete. This was a symbol since the directive pointed to mandates and respect rather than compliance and behaviour.
and so much better than digging in his heels to demonstrate who's boss.
Does that mean no more whipped votes?
Or else what could a whipped vote actually mean without a "boss"?
Jagmeet is in a no-win situation here. Now if he makes a tough decision that the caucus doesn't agree with, all they have to do is go to the media to complain and apply pressure for him to back down. For Jagmeet to do a reversal like this, doesn't show strong leadership at all.
Now the caucus is going to continually question every decision he makes.
LOL! Exactly the opposite! A move like this by Jagmeet could very well be a turning point that gells the party together!
It's okay to admit your mistakes and then correct it, but it this case, the decision came as a surprise to the caucus. Something is not working well internally. There should be no surprises within the party.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ndp-mp-criticizes-leade...
Mr. Angus, who came second in last October’s leadership race, said the fallout from Mr. Singh’s decision to remove NDP MP David Christopherson as vice-chair of the powerful procedure and House affairs committee, has been “intense.”
“People are really stunned, because they don’t understand what the political agenda is by publicly attacking such a senior member of caucus,” Mr. Angus said in an interview. “It’s not how you treat someone who’s given so much of their life to the party and to building solidarity in the caucus. It shows a lack of respect.”
Mr. Angus said the decision to remove Mr. Christopherson from committee “should be reversed immediately.”
Angus is a sore loser. He does not want the NDP to be successful under Singh and he will do his utmost to undermine him every chance he gets. He addresses Singh through the media. Angus should be put out to pasture before he destroys what little hope the party has.
Saganash did the same thing. Should he be put out to pasture as well?
Maybe they first tried in private, but didn’t get anywhere.
I think Saganash is sincere and it is the first strike against him. I withhold judgement on him. I knew Angus was insincere when he tried to make Trudeau backing into Brosseau a feminist issue.
Think a minute about what Angus said:
People are really stunned, because they don’t understand what the political agenda is by publicly attacking such a senior member of caucus,”
He defied the whip. It is normal for fallout to occur otherwise what would be the point of a whipped vote?
"such a senior member of caucus" but it's okay to attack the leader of the party? What's the political agenda there? It's clear that Angus does not accept Singh as leader of the party.
It's okay to admit your mistakes and then correct it, but it this case, the decision came as a surprise to the caucus. Something is not working well internally. There should be no surprises within the party.
Agreed, and I am pretty sure the Angus crew didn't warn Singh they planned on taking their complaint to the media. I don't believe their decision was sincere I think it was opportunistic. It will have no impact on the election. It's still too far away. I just don't think they are going to let up. They will use any excuse they can find to attack Singh.
Angus is not going to stop. He will continue using every excuse he can to criticize Singh publicly.
Well he does have a point. How is he connecting with ordinary Canadians when he is walking the red carpet at the Juno Awards? As Jagmeet was the one who called out Justin Trudeau for being an "elitist" and not understanding the concerns of ordinary Canadians. And then turns around enjoying the flash bulbs at the Juno Awards?
What do you think ordinary Canadians are watching on TV? He needs to normalize his appearance, demistify the turban, appear culturally Canadian. That isn't elitist. He isn't taking vacations with the Aga Khan. He didn't say Trudeau was elitist either. He said he is surrounded by the elite who don't get that precarious employment is unacceptable. Not quite the same thing as calling Trudeau elitist. He has said that he thinks Trudeau is a good guy that means well.
What do you think ordinary Canadians are watching on TV?
He wasn't ON the show, he just went as an audience member. And to get his picture taken on the red carpet, and then attend the after parties with all the big stars.
He didn't say Trudeau was elitist either. He said he is surrounded by the elite who don't get that precarious employment is unacceptable. Not quite the same thing as calling Trudeau elitist. He has said that he thinks Trudeau is a good guy that means well.
Jagnmeet said Trudeau lives in the world of the elite. And when one lives in the world of the "elite" that means they are an "elitist"
Jagnmeet said Trudeau lives in the world of the elite. And when one lives in the world of the "elite" that means they are an "elitist"
Only if you take it out of the context in which it was said because within the same statement he said that Trudeau is a good guy trying to do the right thing. A servant can "live in the world of the elite" if they work on the Aga Khan's island. It doesn't mean they are elitist. You can be elite without being an elitist.
e·lit·ist
relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite
He wasn't ON the show, he just went as an audience member. And to get his picture taken on the red carpet, and then attend the after parties with all the big stars.
I realize he was an attendee. No one would expect otherwise. He was seen to be attending the Junos which is a culturally Canadian event that many Canadians watch. Just like they will see which star is wearing which designer outfit they will also see the new NDP leader, many for the first time. He has to be noticed to gain support.
Only if you take it out of the context in which it was said because within the same statement he said that Trudeau is a good guy trying to do the right thing. A servant can "live in the world of the elite" if they work on the Aga Khan's island. It doesn't mean they are elitist. You can be elite without being an elitist.
e·lit·ist
relating to or supporting the view that a society or system should be led by an elite
Jagmeet Singh should be careful labelling others as wealthy elite
https://bravecanada.ca/jagmeet-singh-should-be-careful-labelling-others-...
btw a "A servant can "live in the world of the elite" but they are working FOR the elite, not hobnobbing among the elite. That is the difference.
From Paul Wells in Macleans
Christopherson’s vote, I’m told, didn’t go over very well with a lot of NDP women on Parliament Hill, and it may not be a coincidence that Singh’s tormentors this week—Christopherson, Angus, Saganash—were all men.
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/free-advice-to-the-ndp-measure-tw...
I'm going to call bullshit on Wells' speculation. Christopherson was the only MP to defy the whip on this issue. Those who defended him did not. And they may have been in full support of the NDP's position. They didn't abstain; they voted against the motion.
http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/votes/42/1/459/
This was about whether punishment was in order for what was a principled stand.
Besides, it is not just pro-choice men who have spoken out against that attestation. Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal wrote a damning editorial on it a month ago.
I think the more salient point is this.
There’s a year until the next federal election campaign begins. In important ways it’s already going on. Switching leaders is a time-consuming process that can have unpredictable results. And unlike in 2016, when New Democrats could fool themselves that something wonderful would magically happen after they turfed Mulcair, now they know what a post-Singh leadership field would look like. It would look like Guy Caron and Niki Ashton and a seriously damaged-goods, remind-us-again-why-you-dragged-us-into-this-mess Charlie Angus. And incidentally, all those candidates would look even whiter than they and I already do after Singh became the shortest-lived leader in the party’s history.
Like it or not undermining Singh's leadership looks ugly and will do a lot of damage if Angus is not reined in.
I'm going to call bullshit on Wells' speculation. Christopherson was the only MP to defy the whip on this issue. Those who defended him did not. And they may have been in full support of the NDP's position. They didn't abstain; they voted against the motion.
http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/votes/42/1/459/
This was about whether punishment was in order for what was a principled stand.
Besides, it is not just pro-choice men who have spoken out against that attestation. Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal wrote a damning editorial on it a month ago.
No, it had nothing to do with the attestation. The issue was defying a whipped vote. If MPs can defy a whipped vote without consequences then there is no such thing as a whipped vote anymore. It fundamentally changes the nature of how the party operates in parliament in a major way.
Should be mentioned that Scott Simms (Liberal MP) broke ranks with his party and voted with the Conservatives. No disciplinary action was taken, because it was a free vote. I remember in the 2015 election there was a side argument among candidates about which party had the most free votes, the Liberals or the NDP.
It seems the Liberals have more free votes than the NDP, as a few Liberal MPs have voted against their own party since they have formed government.
If MPs can defy a whipped vote without consequences then there is no such thing as a whipped vote anymore. It fundamentally changes the nature of how the party operates in parliament in a major way.
Let's turn that around.
If parties start reflexively using whipped votes for arbitrary and unnecessary reasons (and it was arbitrary in this case because it was not a motion of confidence, or even an issue of reproductive rights, and it was in no danger of passing) it will change the nature of how parliament works in a far more major and dangerous way.
The far more important question is why it was whipped in the first place, not how well-trained and obedient the members are. They are members of the party, but they ultimately have a responsibility to the people.
Singh has to make peace with Angus, not to defeat him. This is a bigger trick but the party will fail without it. Angus, you may argue with, but I think he is sincere and this is an important principle.
As for it being a whipped vote -- that was the first mistake. There was no reason to make it so. The leadership of the NDP has stop confusing principle and symbols and messages. This was not an issue that affected access or the rights themselves. The focus was on respect and mandate rather than compliance and behaviour. You have to tell the difference. This badly worded political statement was not something to split the party on.
I would have loved the NDP to say tot he Liberals -- this is a great idea -- here is how to write it so it will make a real difference.
Imagine if the NDP had said write it so if you want federal money you cannot campaign against these rights and you cannot allow any person hired to be exposed to any position against them. That would have made a real difference and would not have raised issues asking grant applications to determine affirmative opinions about issues that some of these organizations may never have defined a position on.
I think the NDP caucus could vote as one for that.
A test for an overt opinion on rights from organizations that may have chosen to be silent on them is a mistake. Why would it be necessary for form to make the condition of recieving money be a direct endorsement on an issue an organization has been silent on? As worthy as this is, how many other issues, equally important, do we not demand specific endorsements on? Do we want to have a support test for all of them for every contact? I agree with the right, they must be enforced but I also do not want this country to start the process of requiring formal endorsements of government policy -- even on human rights. I know where this leads us. When others say it is thought control, it is, becasue that is what the word respect means. I frankly don't care about respect when it comes to this policy. I want compliance and the paragraph did not even include compliance. Let me explain: an organization can say it respects as meaningless as that is, but an individual could interfere. That interference would be prohibited if you wanted a real change and focused on behaviour. But if you want a thought-control political message then you demand respect form the organization rather than behaviour and compliance. Political messages get swept away in the next election so someone wanting something durable would also want better wording.
If I had been an MP, I would have demanded a wording change for my support -- and that would have been the language of complaince adn enforcement of behaviour rather than mandates.
Don't blame the MPs who are questionning this even if you disagree. This is a legitimate issue.
As far as Singh is concerned -- I think he is not going to be damaged by this and that he can develop a good relationship with NDP MPs including Angus. Those saying the sky is falling if he does not clamp down are mistaken.
If MPs can defy a whipped vote without consequences then there is no such thing as a whipped vote anymore. It fundamentally changes the nature of how the party operates in parliament in a major way.
Let's turn that around.
If parties start reflexively using whipped votes for arbitrary and unnecessary reasons (and it was arbitrary in this case because it was not a motion of confidence, or even an issue of reproductive rights, and it was in no danger of passing) it will change the nature of how parliament works in a far more major and dangerous way.
The far more important question is why it was whipped in the first place, not how well-trained and obedient the members are. They are members of the party, but they ultimately have a responsibility to the people.
Cross-posted with you -- we are on the same wave-length.
As for it being a whipped vote -- that was the first mistake. There was no reason to make it so. The leadership of the NDP has stop confusing principle and symbols and messages. This was not an issue that affected access or the rights themselves. The focus was on respect and mandate rather than compliance and behaviour. You have to tell the difference. This badly worded political statement was not something to split the party on.
Well said.
As for it being a whipped vote -- that was the first mistake. There was no reason to make it so. The leadership of the NDP has stop confusing principle and symbols and messages. This was not an issue that affected access or the rights themselves. The focus was on respect and mandate rather than compliance and behaviour. You have to tell the difference. This badly worded political statement was not something to split the party on.
Well said.
You, Sean, Smith, the media and of course, politicians are either, respectfully, misinformed/haven't actually read the full details or wilfully claiming ignorance to them. As a political issue, I can see why it's difficult to support due to the media coverage riding the hot take but if you're sticking to the strawmen that have been proffered, it leaves me only to suggest a closer look at the issue of your own taking.
And it actually is just about not funding jobs that violate/undermine human rights. The organizations can be anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-ssm, etc. as long as that is not their primary activity and the particular program is compliant with these rights.
Why is that so controversial? Sound byte society is why. The facts are not important.
As for it being a whipped vote -- that was the first mistake. There was no reason to make it so. The leadership of the NDP has stop confusing principle and symbols and messages. This was not an issue that affected access or the rights themselves. The focus was on respect and mandate rather than compliance and behaviour. You have to tell the difference. This badly worded political statement was not something to split the party on.
Well said.
You, Sean, Smith, the media and of course, politicians are either, respectfully, misinformed/haven't actually read the full details or wilfully claiming ignorance to them. As a political issue, I can see why it's difficult to support due to the media coverage riding the hot take but if you're sticking to the strawmen that have been proffered, it leaves me only to suggest a closer look at the issue of your own taking.
And it actually is just about not funding jobs that violate/undermine human rights. The organizations can be anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, anti-ssm, etc. as long as that is not their primary activity and the particular program is compliant with these rights.
Why is that so controversial? Sound byte society is why. The facts are not important.
This is the wording:
"Both the job and my 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 or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression"
Respect is a nice thing but it is problematic to legislate it. It is a verb that is active and requires interpretation from an individual about an organization that may not have spoken to this. Compliance is another matter and if the form spoke of compliance it would be more powerful and less likely to be attacked or cortroversial. I think politicians should actively respect but for all citizens, as great as their respect may be, it is not a requirement in most societies. Compliance is. Even if you want to argue the meanings of the words -- such a provision should be beyond doubt.
Respect is about thought more than action -- it is about esteem and admiration. When used for actions these are meant to demonstrate the thought.
Freedom of thought -- even thought we do not like -- is a strong principle to many and the government could have absolutely established what you say it was meant to do without at all engaging in thought. Not only that, but legislation often does exactly that.
As I have said I FULLY support a requirement to do exactly what you are saying the paragraph, in your view, is intended to do. That is why I would like the wording to do that explicitly. I wold even go further that you and say that the organizations cannot, even in a secondary way, speak or advocate against these rights. What I do not want is a weak statement requiring esteem and admiration, which is much harder to establish than specific compliance.
And don't say that facts are not important about others when you are ignoring relevant facts in order to present others as ignorant rather than actually engage on substance. You do not have to agree with my position or interpreation but to calll me ignorant and question my motives is pretty low. It is also lazy and not constructive.
Respect is a nice thing but it is problematic to legislate it. It is a verb that is active and requires interpretation from an individual about an organization that may not have spoken to this.
Drivers have to respect the speed limit. That doesn't mean they have to like it, endorse it, agree with it, praise it, or celebrate it.
Religious groups aren't up on their hind legs over this because they don't understand what it means, they're up on their hind legs over this because they do understand what it means.
If the "real" problem is the language, wouldn't EVERY group be similarly confused and unsure?
Respect is a nice thing but it is problematic to legislate it. It is a verb that is active and requires interpretation from an individual about an organization that may not have spoken to this.Drivers have to respect the speed limit. That doesn't mean they have to like it, endorse it, agree with it, praise it, or celebrate it.
Religious groups aren't up on their hind legs over this because they don't understand what it means, they're up on their hind legs over this because they do understand what it means.
If the "real" problem is the language, wouldn't EVERY group be similarly confused and unsure?
Here is the wording of the legislation in Ontario: please post any requirement to respect the speed limit in any legislation in Canada:
"128 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at a rate of speed greater than..."
Still, the requirement to respect brings more than behaviour, despite some uses in language, it is used carefully fomrally. It is stated here becuase the intention is to do exactly that - extend beyond behaviour. This is particularly clear in terms of the subject of the respect, mandates since mandates are not behaviours in themselves.
You can find everyday exceptions in langauge but you might note that people often refer to respect for the law as a concept and compliance with specific laws. This is different than respect for individual laws wich is rarely mentionned in a formal context.
This was an unnecessary extension of a legal requirement to enter into concepts of attitude, that regardless of the purpose, is problematic.
All that said I think schools. culture and parents should teach a respect for these rights while regulation should seek compliance. As well I do not think that we ought to single out some rather than others to oblige them to respect while others are only asked to comply.
Again you can argue. That's fine. But there is a legitimate reason to question this wording and why some who are wholly in agreement about compliance may have reservations about this language.
On balance, if I had been an MP I would have raised this. I would have argued for better wording not just to not put people into a position of this kind of interpretation but also to provide more durability to the requirement. I would still have voted for it but I respect those who could feel differently and I disagree that this ought to have been a whipped vote or that there should be any assumptions about those disagreeing having the wrong motives.
As well I do not think that we ought to single out some rather than others to oblige them to respect while others are only asked to comply.
I'm not sure what you mean. Don't all groups who wish funding use the same form?
But there is a legitimate reason to question this wording and why some who are wholly in agreement about compliance may have reservations about this language.
Again, if the language is just unintelligible, why wouldn't everyone be confused?
If the language said "All groups who receive funding must have a proven ossinance quotient..." then everyone would say "what the hell do they mean by an ossinance quotient".
But it seems like only religious groups are confused by common words like "mandate" or "respect". Why? You don't suppose maybe they have a hunch what those words could mean and are only acting like they're in Aramaic?
Looks like Jagmeet did the right thing in the end. He’s starting to show depth as promising leader!
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.
Actually everyone involved - the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives - has acknowledged that the form is unclear.
Only after God-botherers insisted it was and it became a Twitter thing.
But still, though. Why is it only unclear to religious groups? Why isn't "Soccer Balls for Kids" similarly confused about what their "mandate" is and whether they "respect" equal marriage?
From Sean in Ottawa:
It is a verb that is active...
It is also a noun that means
Due regard for something considered important or authorative; as in 'respect for the law'.
That is perfectly clear to me. And, like Magoo, I suspect it is perfectly clear to the organizations that are complaining.
Just to make it even more clear, from my trusty Etymological Dictionary:
respect (n.)
late 14c., "relationship, relation; regard, consideration," from Old French respect and directly from Latin
respectus "regard, a looking at," literally "act of looking back (or often) at one," noun use of past participle of
respicere "look back at, regard, consider," from re- "back" (see re-) + specere "look at" (from PIE root *spek-
"to observe").
The meaning of 'esteem' etc, didn't happen along until a 100 years or so later than the above use. In any case, I have no problem understanding what they're saying. It not only seems clear to me, it seems the correct terminology.
I think what the groups opposed to it want is that it should be more unclear, allowing them to make their own interpretation.
Actually everyone involved - the Liberals, the NDP, and the Conservatives - has acknowledged that the form is unclear.Only after God-botherers insisted it was and it became a Twitter thing.
But still, though. Why is it only unclear to religious groups?
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.
It isn't. They may just have been the ones who noticed it first, but so what?
I'm not asking who "noticed it" first. I'm asking why, long after it was "noticed", it seems like only religious groups remain confused.
If it's just confusing language, why only the religious?
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.
But not non-religious groups. Huh.
According to the story I posted the Great Lakes International Air Show refused to sign. Not sure why.
That some groups might be comfortable signing it is irrelevant. There are non-religious people who see it as a problem. It isn't a matter, as you say, of people being "confused" or not understanding.
What was confusing - well, misleading, actually - was the language in the form. Again, the NDP whip spoke of the "lack of clarity has caused a number of MPs across party lines to wrestle with this issue."
That some groups might be comfortable signing it is irrelevant.
Comfort isn't an issue, and shouldn't be.
I'm just suggesting that it seems like non-faith groups are better at understanding the meaning of two words that would be appropriate in a Grade 5 spelling bee than faith groups. Notwithstanding, of course the Great Lakes International Air Show. Not sure why.
Some groups signed because it doesn't conflict with their beliefs. It has nothing to do with understanding the words.
By contrast, The NDP has said it was not clear, and problematic for many MPs. I just posted that quote.
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.
Some groups signed because it doesn't conflict with their beliefs.
How could they possibly know that?
Y'know... if the language is opaque and unintelligible? Who could be sure??
It has nothing to do with understanding the words.
Being OK with it because it doesn't conflict with their beliefs necessarily has everything to do with understanding the words. Or else how do you know the "words" (if they even ARE words) don't conflict with your beliefs?
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, the liberals were trying to create a wedge issue with the wording they chose for this grants form.
Jagmeet finally recognized that the wording is meant to only polarize and it would be best to reconsider how involved the NDP should go.
I can see the liberals now even reconsidering contemplating playing these games and possibly changing the wording on the grants application in fear of creating another “gun registry “ fiasco
Notwithstanding some semantic history. The wording is about an attitude to the rights more than compliance. This is completely unnecessary. The issue is not entirely that the meaning of the words themsevles are in dispute but that the application to the organization is vague.
Two things should happen: clear requirements to comply. A respect for something is not the same as complying with it. In some ways respect is more and in other ways respect is less. There should never be less. Example I gave before: an organization could respect the rights but fail to ensure that individuals and even all policies complied with them.
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.
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.
Since compliance with Charter rights is already law, claiming this requirement is not trying to go further than compliance seems ridiculous. If it was only compliance they were after why write it at all?
This statement can be considered political. What would not be political would be a reminder of these constitutional rights (public edicucation) and the requirement of all organizations and individuals to comply with them. The word respect does not become part of that.
From Sean in Ottawa:
A respect for something is not the same as complying with it.
In fact that is exactly the meaning. I really don't see what's so complicated about this.
While the word "respect" has a multitude of meanings, in the context of governance, it means the following:
respect
noun
10. to show regard or consideration for:
to respect someone's rights.
11. to refrain from intruding upon or interfering with:
to respect a person's privacy.
You don't have to "admire" someone's privacy to respect it.
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.
"The court" of public opinion however, is another story.
It's obviously going to be most problematic for conservative Xtian types who, unsurprisingly, already hate the Liberals. So, double trouble.
I just really wish I could believe, with my heart, that the opponents of this are people who really are confused, or really do just want a different word, and who really don't intend in any way to oppose "Adam and Steve" or "abortuaries"... but I can't.
When did we get that naive?? Or conversely, when did religious k00Ks get that honest and trustworthy?
From what I've seen, right-wingers really don't understand legal nuance. For example, lots of right-wingers are defending Laura Ingraham, who is losing advertisers because of her recent statements on a Parkland shooting survivor. Right-wingers say that Ingraham's "freedom of speech" is being violated by the advertisers who stopped giving her money. Lots of people are really that stupid. So I'm not surpised that some may be confused.
