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

I was actually looking for something else regarding her, but ran across this. I had been wondering how Elizabeth May voted. In fact she did support the Conservative motion:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/20/elizabeth-may-tories-canada-sum...
 

The defeated motion, tabled by Tory MP Karen Vecchio, stated that organizations engaging in "non-political non-activist work, such as feeding the homeless, helping refugees and giving kids an opportunity to go to camp," should be able to access the grants regardless of whether or not they sign the attestation.

May told HuffPost that while she supports Hajdu's intent to keep funds from anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ organizations, the language used in the attestation created difficulty for faith-based groups who do a "lot of good work in this country."

May said she had a hard time convincing some groups in her B.C. riding, such as organizers of summer bible camps or devout Roman Catholics, just to "check the box" and voice concerns in a secondary letter.

"The attestation went too far in speaking to what values underlie the Charter in specific terms without referencing that you also have, under the Charter, the right to freedom of religion," she said.

Of course I know people who have straight religious views, even if they aren't part of the anti-abortion crew that camps out by City Hospital during Lent. I'm wondering what part of the world you live in that you don't.

As for hoping the day never comes for them to support us in return, that's just nonsense. There are zealots and there are reasonable people in all camps. I have had occasion to get personal and political support from people with those beliefs, and gotten it. Yes they are wrong about choice and sexism and LGBT issues, but that doesn't mean they have no moral centre. It just means they have a big blind spot, as many of us do on some issues.

Besides, do you honestly think none of these people support the NDP? Perhaps they don't where you live, but there certainly are social conservatives and religious people who vote NDP here. And I bet some vote Liberal too. For now, anyway.

As for not recognizing rights, what I see here right now is atheists not giving a shit about them, and blaming the victims in this affair. So I am not sure how our world view gives us any moral high ground here.

In the first place, you are aware that religious groups were also targetted in that crackdown for political reasons - The Mennonite Magazine, the Canadian Unitarian Council, The United Church, and Kairos. And yes, they have spoken out against the targetted audits.

In the second place this is less about team sports than it is about the fact that if you are truly concerned about social justice then it should not matter on whose behalf you are acting.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

In the first place, you are aware that religious groups were also targetted in that crackdown for political reasons - The Mennonite Magazine, the Canadian Unitarian Council, The United Church, and Kairos. And yes, they have spoken out against the targetted audits.

In the second place this is less about team sports than it is about the fact that if you are truly concerned about social justice then it should not matter on whose behalf you are acting.

If this was truly about freedom of religion, I'd be surely be on their site.   I was arguing against Harper's/Quebec's veil bans, despite the questionable beliefs held by many Muslims.  But in this case, some organizations (religious or not) want government money to advocate for restriction of freedoms of others.   Only an authoritarian would want anti-freedom groups to receive government funding.  You are not merely tolerating them, you are helping them with money.  That's a big difference.

Smith, you are confused.  Freedom of conscience does not require government money or any money for that matter.

Of course I read the Interfaith Statement; I also noted who signed it.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Smith, you are confused.  Freedom of conscience does not require government money or any money for that matter.

Actually discrimination against a group for their political beliefs is an infringement on freedom of conscience. It is so in this case, even if organizations do not have rights, and grants are not a right. Though why it is that you see no problem here, but are outraged about the CRA audits? If anything Harper had more cause because he targetted actions, not beliefs. Seems a bit of a contradicion to me.

I disagree with some of this fellow's concerns and arguments, but he raises some good and valid issues, Especially if we are skipping over what is fair and equitable, and falling back on technicalities to justify what we can get away with.

http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/barry-bussey/what-the-fuss-about...

Smith, we discriminate against groups of people for their political beliefs every 3-4 years.  It's called elections.  Going by your "logic", the government has no choice but to fund Nazi  organizations, otherwise it's political discrimination.   In reality, there is no Charter right for government funding.  The CSJ program is completely optional, and not an essential service.

I wasn't happy about Harper defunding women's group and environmentalist groups, but I'm not going to pretend it was illegal.    Infact, it should be expected under a right-wing government.  

If you want an objective legal analysis, instead of an ideologue masquerading as a lawyer, read this: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/karen-busby/liberals-summer-jobs-program-controversy-on-reproductive-rights-overblown-15238/

Well no, of course none of this is illegal, even if it doesn't have a legal foundation - that is, no one would be violating the Charter even if they did fund those freaks who stuff pictures of baby hamburger and chitlins in my mailbox.

That's not the point, and let's cut to the chase. Like me you were outraged when Harper decided to selectively target organizations for trying to relieve poverty.

That is exactly what is happening in this case. The only difference is that these groups are being faced with the choice of shutting themselves out or denying their principles, which is in some ways far more  nasty. Not least because it gives smarmy jerks an excuse to blame them for it.

(edit)

Just cross posted with you. Excuse me but you are accusing me of defending Nazism now? Nice.

Core activities will do just fine. I expect none of this would have happened if the Liberals had written that. One wonders why they didn't do that in the first place.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Core activities will do just fine. I expect none of this would have happened if the Liberals had written that. One wonders why they didn't do that in the first place.

 

I haven't participated in this thread so far, and I don't really have a strong opinion about the issue, but are you really saying that the difference between a fair application form, and a discriminatory one lies in the distinction between "core mandate" and "core activities"? I find that difficult to believe.

Quote:

This is actually about freedom of conscience.

Organizations have a "conscience" now?  Do they have emotions, too?  Good days and bad days?  Do they have life goals?

Because if you substitute "life goals" for "mandate", that could help them understand what mandate means.

Unionist wrote:

A mandate is what I was never able to get in junior high school, so I decided to go hetero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

Unionist wrote:

Hope they disband.

Well with fancy moves like this I'd say they are doing their best to accommodate you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34

Miscegenation? I'm sure we can do better than that. Even SC101 has crossed the Godwin line.

Since we seem to be out to show the anti-abortionists that good progressives can meet their match in the demonizing department. Surely that untrustworthy, vindictive crew would be using our money to stone people to death, buy acid for throwing on people, and pliers for pulling out fingernails if we gave them half a chance.

Though I suppose Sam Harris has nuked that one to death already.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

As for religious organizations pretending to be victims and not acting in good faith, I suggest you read the statement from 90 religious leaders on the Canada Summer Jobs programs.  Instead of just quoting the attestation word for word, they added their own wording "BELIEFS".  Why not simply copy the attestation if your point is self-evident?  They are trying to sell something else.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

That is exactly what is happening in this case. The only difference is that these groups are being faced with the choice of shutting themselves out or denying their principles, which is in some ways far more  nasty. Not least because it gives smarmy jerks an excuse to blame them for it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Core activities will do just fine. I expect none of this would have happened if the Liberals had written that. One wonders why they didn't do that in the first place.

Why did the groups add the word "BELIEFS" in their objection when it isn't in the application?  Could it be they want to make the government look bad? Sway voters to stick with the Conservatives perhaps? 

Pondering wrote:

Could it be they want to make the government look bad? Sway voters to stick with the Conservatives perhaps? 

Sorry to break it to you, but I think the Liberals did that all by themselves.

The real head scratcher for me is why the NDP felt it was their duty to jump after them.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Could it be they want to make the government look bad? Sway voters to stick with the Conservatives perhaps? 

Sorry to break it to you, but I think the Liberals did that all by themselves.

The real head scratcher for me is why the NDP felt it was their duty to jump after them.

I think the Liberals will benefit from it not be hurt. I'm speculating on the motives of the groups that object. Why did the groups change the wording if the original wording was so bad?

From 6079_Smith_W:

Miscegenation? I'm sure we can do better than that. Even SC101 has crossed the Godwin line.

​The point was that a groups 'core mandate' and their activities are usually very close. I mean what would be the point of having a core madate when you had no intention of creating activities around that core mandate? 

But you're right, it didn't have to be miscegenation in my example. I'll tell you what, just for you, because all this seems to be very difficult for you to understand, I'll create another example that doesn't use miscegenation...

Yes, we are a union whose core mandate is organizing workers, but we don't intend to actually do anything that would aid in organizing workers.

​There, are you happier with that?

Now, do get that a group that has a core mandate, but has no intention of engaging in any activities to achieve their objective, to be a bit strange?

From 6079_Smith_W:

There is no good reason why that belief should prevent them from providing services to the poor, or to immigrants, or to prisoners, or seniors, or Indigenous people.

​In fact no one is preventing them from doing those things. ​This is about taxpayer funding.

Churches are already very 'privileged' in our society. Is that not enough?

All church mandates are the same. They exist to perpetuate themselves. Everything else is just window dressing.

If I had a magic wand, I would restrict all government funding to secular institutions only.  This would also be perfectly legal.   But considering the lack of charitable activities throughout the country, we may have to hold our collective noses for now.

Smith, churches use charitable actitivities to spread their message and expand  their memberships.    For people running those churches, it is essentially a profitable business.  So I would not imply that religious people are somehow inherently more charitable than secular people.

I do my own fair share of charitable work.   The question is: should the govenrment even be spending money which will be partially used for church recruitment?    Why not allocate the funds to existing secular charities or have the public sector take care of the needy?

Churches will continue to do some of the charitable work because their membership numbers depend on it.   But the govenrment should focus their spending on expanding their own capabilities, not on funding church advocacy.

I remember the days when we didn't need food banks.

This won't impact chariable 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.

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