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

So we should make life as painful as possible for Christians in order to get them to abandon their beliefs? I think history ancient and recent shows this to be incredibly stupid. Didn't work for the Jehovah Witness in Quebec, or the Doukabours in BC. Instead it tends to strengthen beliefs.

Instead, if you believe someone needs to change you need to work with them.  Build on their strengths, and be firm in your beliefs regarding their faults. I think change is far more likely to happens through dialogue and cooperation.  

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If they aren't actively campaigning against choice or orientation? No. They aren't doing anything.

There are plenty of cases where people hold values - about politics, religion, gender, sex - that, intended or not, discriminate against others. You can't police and demonize people for matters of conscience, and even if you could it has never changed people's minds.

Should we apply this rule in all cases where people disagree on things that impact rights and freedoms?

And again, if this is such a big deal why is Trudeau doing this on a relatively small front, but not pulling funding from church hospitals and other institutions? Some of them have given more grounds for this than gift stores and summer camps:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/st-boniface-maid-1.4170082

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/some-manitoba-hospitals-give-unc...

Seems to me that is more of a direct interference with access to abortion than stuffing mailboxes, but somehow I don't see Justin applying his firm principles in that case anytime soon.

Hospitals are funded provincially and from you link:

louw wants the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority to take control of St. Boniface Hospital away from the Catholic Health Corp. of Manitoba.

​"Why should St. Boniface hospital be managed any differently than any other facility in this city?" he asked.

Currently, the hospital is funded and staffed by the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, but takes direction from the Catholic Corporation of Manitoba via the St. Boniface board of directors.

You seem to think there is some sort of defence of Trudeau going on. There isn't. It is the policy I approve not Trudeau.

 

The federal government gives all kinds of direct funding to hospitals, including ones run by religions. Infrastructure funding, research grants (and I mentioned one of those upthread). They also have the option of pressing issues like this with the province when it comes to transfer payments.

So no, it isn't just the province. And why it is relevant is that Trudeau claims he can't budge on that x, while he cuts cheques to organizations that really do undermine access to abortion in a far bigger way than the mailbox stuffers this was originally supposed to deal with. If he is all about the rights of women and LGBT people and access to reproductive services why is he silent on that front, and continuing to fund them?

You might also want to read up on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses and Doukhobours. The government did actually refuse to recognize their status as a religion. And worse: https://historyofrights.ca/encyclopaedia/main-events/jehovahs-witnesses/

And then consider what is being done right now to Muslims, because of our prejudices against them.

That isn't really his jurisdiction, but whether it is a good idea or not, I don't see Trudeau going there. Cardiac research is a bit more of a risk than shutting down a summer camp.

See the question I have when we stray into this line of rhetoric - perpetuating prejudice and comparisons with genocide - is that if that is the case how does checking off a box (fingers crossed behind your back or not) change that one bit?

I get the feeling some are happy with this government policy not because they think it is balanced but because a half measure is better than nothing, and this dancing around the meaning of words and blaming the applicants is just a foil. It certainly seems so from the way religious people are being characterized.

Pondering wrote:

A half measure of something is better than nothing. Incremental advancement is still advancement.

Sorry if perhaps I am not explaining this correctly.

If you think they cannot be reasoned with and that they promote prejudice then why the lip service to this declaration? Whether they sign it or not they still cannot be reasoned with, and they still promote prejudice, according to what you and others here say.

It's just getting a bit tiring to dance between these two contradictory arguments - that they don't understand and all they have to do is sign, and on the other hand that they can't be reasoned with, can't be trusted, and promote prejudice. Maybe we should just pick one and deal with that.

If they can't be trusted, how can you trust a signature?

Difference is though, those are real crimes and legal matters.

Pledging to respect unspecified "underlying values" and rights that aren't on paper isn't really clear at all. Besides, technically one can respect someone's access and still lobby to change it.

Rather than getting all esoteric I think a simple pledge to not use funds to campaign against access to reproductive rights or LGBT rights might have been a bit simpler and caused a lot fewer headaches all around. And I know we dealt with this way upthread, but they do check in on these projects, including site visits, and they can yank funding right away if something is not how it should be. They don't really have to prove anything.

double post

Pondering wrote:

Again they cannot be reasoned with on the topic of faith. They adjusted their priorities when they were at risk of losing a congregation. That kind of reasoning gave them pause for thought. Suddenly they could make "exceptions".

That assumes that there is no role for the congregation in determining the tenets. Change comes in many ways.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  Go back up the thread. There were all kinds of allegations being made about using the money for something else, and saying they are doing one thing, and actually doing another.  

I don't recall seeing that and you tend to put your own spin on what people are saying. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  And if you don't think they will listen to rational argument, how do you think they can honestly check that box?  

Either they honestly can't check or they can. If they can't the don't get the funding. If they can they do. I don't think they should lie. If their core mandate prevents them from respective the rights of LGBTQ2 and reproductive rights they should definitely not check the box. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 This really makes no sense in a lot of ways, but the end result is demonizing people some people who have acted in good faith and kept the peace on these issues. 

They are being refused funding not being demonized. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  This (among other negative things, including giving the actual anti-abortionists a free forum, and sympathy) is the end result of this supposedly progressive policy 

If they are getting sympathy it doesn't seem like they have been demonized to me. Anti-abortionists have every right to promote their views. As the article I referenced pointed out in this case there really is a quiet majority that only speaks up if they see a threat. Then they outnumber the anti-abortionists.

If it gets anywhere near legislation women will descend on parliament like never before. Same goes for LGBTQ2 rights. Just try to roll anything back in Canada. 

You can start on page one if you want. But read two through five and it covers both baseless questions about money being redirected, and activities being funded that are not on the application form.

As I said back then, that is not going to happen. And probably the best evidence of that is that when pro-choice organizations went lookign for this they found a thorough list of those doing work that was opposing abortion. No one was hiding or stealing anything.

As for sympathy, don't believe me. Read that editorial by Paula Simon. Read what David Christopherson said. Look at the 75 percent of Canadians who feel that when it involves groups that are not doing anti-abortion activities the attestation was unfair.

quizzical wrote:

good catch on the whole receiving sympathy and being demonized at the same time pondering.

the twists and turns to spew phoney shit.

THIS
 

(I must admit that the 2nd season of The Handmaid's Tale has me feeling pretty depressed.)

This is just me remembering an old lecture, but I am pretty sure the JW grew during the time of Duplesis.

I am not asking people to turn a blind eye to any wrong views.  I don't. I will make a point of letting people know my disagreements with their views.  I can also point to many times when faith groups provided the backbone to important good works.  Things like providing food for the homeless or showing up to support a tennant who was facing repeated evictions. At these times never were human rights discussed and often government money was involved. It would take an incredible amount of pretzel logic to say that their participation advanced their agenda (other than the general rule that permeates most faith groups of 'do good works).  I would argue the opposite.  That by interacting with outside groups they were taken out of their echo chamber and would hear world views that would make them challenge their own - albeit often in small incremental ways.

Wow.  There is no point discussing this further.

Some of us believe that certain facts and rights are not up for debate. I don't believe in giving toxic viewpoints validation by treating those views as just a matter of opinion. We don't do it for genocide or slavery, why should we do so for other dangerous transgressions against the rights of people or concern for the health of the globe.

Quote:

We don't do it for genocide or slavery, why should we do so for other dangerous transgressions against the rights of people or concern for the health of the globe.

Does Jesus endorse either of those?

Because when you scrape off all the mud and crap, this stuff always comes down to Jesus.  Well, or his dad.

quizzical wrote:

you all have touched on the reality they do not want to follow the laws of the land.

when Harper or any "christian" gets into office they pull out the bible quotes about following the laws of the land because if you rule god put you there.

but when it's not what they consider a "christian government" they forget all about the bible passage.

nope nothing rational about the fundamentalist christians.

 

Sorry -- this is not what I am talking about and not what I think others are talking about.

You do not need a declaration when it comes to obeying the laws of the land.

The issue I think we were talking about is advocating against what are consitutional rights. This is not illegal and not breaking any law as it is free expression. However, you should not be getting state aid to advocate against established human rights.

So there is a huge distinction between

1) breaking laws regarding consitutional rights which I think most of these orghanizations are not doing

and 2) Trying to get those rights laws changed.

This second one is offensive and while it is not illegal the government has a right to contract that those who get money do not advocate against established rights.

This is also the problem with the word "respect" in the form -- I have argued here that the word means more than obey since you would not need to have a declaration form to take away sponsorship from those who would not obey. Also there is little history of disobedience from any of these groups so much as disrespecting the law by calling for change.

So I think this is the crux of he debate: that it is not one of trying to get people to follow the law so much as asking them to respect constitutional rights such that they not publicly advocate against them.

I do not have a problem with people advocating against most laws. The boundary here is when it comes to established constitutional rights. So even if you take federal money you can advocate against almost any law -- except human rights.

(Of course we have had several side discussions about protections of laws gained through the courts as opposed to written into the constitution and of whether religious organizations ought to be funded at all. Good discussions to have but not the same issue.)

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

We don't do it for genocide or slavery, why should we do so for other dangerous transgressions against the rights of people or concern for the health of the globe.

Does Jesus endorse either of those?

Because when you scrape off all the mud and crap, this stuff always comes down to Jesus.  Well, or his dad.

i agree lainelow we don't and shouldn't.

magoo it switches between father and son depending on what they want to justify.

dad comes into play when they wannabe bigoted.

the son when they want to use Paul's endless words and Revelations to justify end of days seeking.

though both dad and son are used to justify their prosperity gospel.

i always wonder when "christians" are going to understand the third person in their little triad isn't the "holy spirit" but 'god the mother'? :D

quizzical wrote:

imv same thing. human rights were instrumented by government decree.

 

If you mean the difference between court extension and text fo the constitution there is an important distinction. While they ahve the exact same effect in law one is more protected than the other. This is not a statemnt of value but a legal fact. Future courts with appointments controlled by future governmentscan interpret things differently but the text itself has an emending formula involving the provinces. This is no small matter.

There are reasons people may want to see more explicit language in a future amendment of the text to make future interpretation more constrained. This fact also applies to many other areas of constitutional law, be it related to Indigenous  people or distinct society. It is why there can be pressure to change the text to be more explicit even where law presently suggests it would have no effective difference.

A call for amendment has the effect of setting out a current interpretation and freezing some aspect of it. The argument for this approach is loudest when it comes to fundamental rights. This principal is behind the establishment of a written consitution itself. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not invent a pile of rights -- under English law these existed int he unwritten constitution. They are laid out in clear language as a means of communicating what may already be established law and making it so those principles are protected for the future, which is why consitutional amendment is different than amendment of other laws.

So when it comes to an authority to a lower court you are correct but when it comes to how constitutional law is forzen in a document, there is a real benefit in the specific inclusion in text. To deny this is to deny the arguments of many people seeking consitutional amendment.

Hm. Christians like Tommy Douglas? Like J S Woodsworth? Like Catholic Pierre Trudeau? And you do know that both the MCC and the Anglican Church are part of Kairos and that even the United Church gives recognizes congregations freedom to discriminate or not.
This is the problem when your measure isn't actions but values, or in some cases your assumptions about who are the good ones and who are the bad ones. No different than any other kind of people sorting.
And this is what makes us progressive?

"Cull", hmm? As if the anti-abortion priests are being lined up for slaughter?

Which "rights" are we talking about? We've already established, ad nauseam, that there's no right to funding. Nobody in the Trudeau government has even suggested taxing religious institutions. Religious people who are economically disadvantaged have as much right to social assistance as the non-religious, and in fact, usually receive more, due to subsidies to these organizations. Nobody's proposing setting the overwhelming religious majority adrift on an ice floe. They still get separate schools, tax exemptions, the right to discriminate in hiring, and just about any reasonable (and a lot of unreasonable) accomodations they can think of. Which rights are being taken away?

And no, the funding isn't available to businesses that don't check the box.

Quote:

let's remember this isn't about a special religious privilege, it is about cutting groups off from funding that is available to virtually any organization, including business.

Let's also remember that it's available to religious organizations.

the Government wrote:

• 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. 
• Example 3: A faith-based organization that embraces a traditional definition of marriage but whose primary activities reduce social isolation among seniors applies for funding to hire students. The students would be responsible for developing and delivering programs to all seniors, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. ‎ This organization would be eligible to apply. 
• Example 5: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs that operates a summer camp for disadvantaged youth applies for funding to hire students as camp counselors. The students would be responsible for developing programs for the youth, including leadership and skills development. This organization would be eligible to apply.

don't care. people with those"values" don't need tax payer money they already get too much.

and what with your local MP getting to decide who does and doesn't get funding there may have been secular orgs and businesses who lost out to religious groups all the time.

as for no one stepping into a breach of services due to no students i call bs.

quizzical wrote:

don't care. people with those"values" don't need tax payer money they already get too much.

Yes, exactly.

The government is using rhetoric to suggest that they are acting on this but when you read the interpretation they offer it means they are not. They are trying to ahve it both ways depending on who is listening. The confusion is intentional since this was about politics rather than a solution to the real problem.

Nobody in politics seems to have the guts to quesiton why religions get the tax treatment they do and campaign agaisnt human rights and have absolute disdain for equality. This tinkering with the form does not address this.

The government is doing nothing real here. The religious organizations are probably screaming only becuase they are senidng a warning that a future government ought not to find a real backbone and actually do something about this.

Both the action and the reaction is mostly false.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It isn't about churches and their tax status Sean - a status which many would have anyway as non-profit organizations. And property taxes? That is provincial and municipal, and many are moving on it. One example: 

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/no-more-religious-exemptions-montreal-is-tax...

But even elsewhere, some are being asked how much of their buildings are for worship, and how much for other use.

And the real complaint isn't about campaigning against anything. It is about asking people what they believe even if they are doing nothing, like the restaurant owner mentioned in this story:

https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/8345446--purity-test-shuts-down-innisf...

A lot of it is about profit -- as you just pointed out. If it is about profit then it is about tax status.

the only dog whistle i am seeing in action is the ones who are anti-human rights calling their followers or same anti-human rights believers to action.