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

198 posts / 0 new
Last post
SocialJustice101
Trudeau government stands firm in clash with faith-based groups over summer jobs

"Labour Minister Patty Hajdu says the government is ‘very comfortable’ with a new funding requirement that has religious organizations fuming "

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeau-government-stands-firm-in-clash-with-faith-based-groups-over-summer-jobs/

SocialJustice101

The only "Opinions" and "Editorials" I've seen are hammering Trudeau for not funding anti-choice groups, as if government funding is a Charter right.  I knew that Canada's mainstream media was right-wing, but their apparent social conservatism is quite troubling.

quizzical

no government or non-profit is legally allowed to fund faith based initiatives.

faith based organizations like church summer camps suck up student summer employee grants. and these camps do churchy preachy portions. their funding should be pulled.

in fact i would like to know if they've actually paid their employees this money.

most bible camps expect their student summer employees to volunteer. just go to their websites to find evidence of this.

Pondering

SocialJustice101 wrote:

The only "Opinions" and "Editorials" I've seen are hammering Trudeau for not funding anti-choice groups, as if government funding is a Charter right.  I knew that Canada's mainstream media was right-wing, but their apparent social conservatism is quite troubling.

Trudeau did this to burnish his progressive and feminist credentials at little cost. (Singh noted Trudeau isn't actually doing much concrete for women). The media is championing freedom while currying favor with social conservatives by defending their rights.

Neither actually gives a hoot about the young people trying to get work experience. 

SocialJustice101

There was already a court decision in 2015 on a very similar case.  The Canadian Arab Federation lost government funding after making supposedly "anti-semitic" comments.  They sued the government for violating their freedom of speech and expression.   The court ruled that government funding is not a right and does not affect freedom of expression.   But the media keeps pretending this is a question of religious freedom, which it obviously is not.   Nobody has a right to government funding.   Over the past 5 years, anti-choice groups received a whoping $3.5 Million in government funding.  That should have been the real story.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, seems to me that most of us basically agree that no law student, at Trinity Western, should need to genuflect before The Jeebus, and swear not not sin in order to get a law education.  So it's probably not a bad thing if teenagers don't have to do that for a summer job.

The "tell" that we're on the right track is the suggestion that this "has religious organizations fuming".

"The government can't just order us around and dictate our morals to us the way we want to order teenagers around and dictate their morals to them", say religious groups, all poutingly.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Good for Trudeau. Another right decision by the government. I'm not used to saying that. It's refreshing.

SocialJustice101

It was the right decision. I just hope they stand by their decision, in the face of right-wing media criticism.   I bet Liberal MPs will get an avalanche of so-con spam, and total silence from the pro-choice majority. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I bet Liberal MPs will get an avalanche of so-con spam, and total silence from the pro-choice majority.

Perhaps, if there are more social conservatives putting quill pen to parchment, it's because they're mad about this.  And similarly, if the pro-choice majority doesn't send a letter maybe it's because this just makes sense, and they've nothing to be concerned about.

If the government says it's not legal for a corporation to force employees to paint their face in company colours, I wouldn't necessarily choose to send them a letter saying "Yes, that's a good judgement, and thank-you".

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Those anti-choice, anti-gay organizations got very comfy receiving truckloads of government money under Harper's rule. Similarly, organizations doing amazing work overseas empowering women, including supporting reproductive rights, were quietly defunded.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Liberals should stand firm. So-Cons don't vote Liberal anyway. This is not going to cost the Liberals a thing.

quizzical

i agree alan. it's not going to cost them and it had to be done.

like i said above i am not even sure the student summer camp employees get the wage we subsidize.

the bible camps out here make it quite clear camp counselor positions are volunteer cause you're doing god's work.

all the religious orgs who harper was feeding need the funding yanked too.

they tried to sneak some grants through here too and were quite angry they were denied.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

NDP blasts reproductive-rights rules for summer jobs program

NDP ethics critic Nathan Cullen says the new policy is comparable to the Harper government's move several years ago to strip funding from aid organizations that supported abortion -- just on the other side of the debate.

Cullen says the only test should be whether the summer-job funding will be used for a good purpose and, if the Liberals are trying to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that job is better left to the courts and the police.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-blasts-reproductive-rights-rules-for...

After this story went live Nathan Cullen tweeted that his words have been taken out of context tweeting

"This headline is totally misleading. Let me be clear - NDP & I have always & will always staunchly defend a woman’s right to choose. Any group whose purpose is to infringe on that right should receive $0 Govt funding! Period. Funding for summer jobs should be based on the work."

https://twitter.com/nathancullen/status/956279638476623877

SocialJustice101

If true, Cullen's whole argument about the police enforcing the Charter is completely flawed.  The Charter only limits the power of the government, as well as its subcontractors.   The job of the police is to enforce the Criminal Code, not the Charter. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Cullen says the only test should be whether the summer-job funding will be used for a good purpose

Isn't that pretty much the case?

As I read it, the new policy just wants to ensure that recipients:

- don't have a core mandate to oppose abortion (and other rights).  That doesn't mean that individuals cannot be pro-life, just that if one of the raisons d'etre of the organization must not be to roll-back reproductive rights.

- aren't hiring students to perform jobs supporting the roll-back of reproductive rights.

I would assume this would mean that The Catholic Teenagers Camp Foundation could still hope for government funding to hire counsellors for their day camp, provided they exist primarily as a summer youth camp and not as a "pro-life" organization, and provided they're not asking those counsellors to tell teens that abortion is a one way ticket to hell, or hand out pamphlets.

Funny, though, how "faith-based" people often seem to believe they have a covenant with God, but are so seldom content to just be allowed to believe as they personally wish to believe, and act as God wants them personally to act.  This doesn't prevent any individual from following their conscience.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Cullen just sent another tweet

"Really folks I’m trying to get clear on the gov’t position and ‘blasted’ no one. I think denying all faith-based groups any funding would be worrisome. When Harper cut Kairos funding because of their beliefs I was opposed as well."

https://twitter.com/nathancullen/status/956297923893088262

Pondering

Mighty Middle wrote:

Cullen just sent another tweet

"Really folks I’m trying to get clear on the gov’t position and ‘blasted’ no one. I think denying all faith-based groups any funding would be worrisome. When Harper cut Kairos funding because of their beliefs I was opposed as well."

https://twitter.com/nathancullen/status/956297923893088262

And that's why I don't like Cullen. I'm not really following the argument but I know for sure it doesn't deny funding to all faith-based groups. Cullen isn't stupid. He knows that. 

brookmere

I don't think Singh is stupid either. This is on him too.

SocialJustice101

I suspect Cullen is just jumping on the conservative media bangwagon,  opposing for opposition's sake.

josh

Cullen and the NDP are right on this.  It’s one thing to make these groups pledge non-discrimination, it’s another to make them salute a particular policy.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

Cullen continues to clarify his position via twitter

"I absolutely apologize without reservation. I’ve read the guidelines and to be clear the new examples from the gov’t will permit funding to groups that are pro-life or opposed to gay marriage will still qualify if the summer job doesn’t promote those activities. I am pro-choice."

"On the summer student program debate let me be clear: I apologize for the harm from my comments. I & the NDP are fiercely pro-choice. I reacted to concerns raised by groups in my riding on the gov’ts first statement on the policy. The subsequent examples put those fears to rest."

"There was truly no attempt at partisanship. Concerns were raised by groups in my riding. My tone was respectful my words not totally articulate. The clarifications from gov’t have helped alleviate fears."

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

Cullen and the NDP are right on this.  It’s one thing to make these groups pledge non-discrimination, it’s another to make them salute a particular policy.

  But Cullen now says he opposes funding anti-abortion groups.  He's all over the place.   

josh

If a conservative government tried to require a group to pledge to support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as a condition of funding, most of you would be screaming.  And rightly so.  This is no different,

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

If a conservative government tried to require a group to pledge to support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as a condition of funding, most of you would be screaming.  And rightly so.  This is no different,

Most NDPers would agree that they don't want tax dollars going to any organizations that wants to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

SocialJustice101

Josh, are you saying anti-choice groups should continue getting government funding??  They got $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.  They spend the cash to harrass women near abortion clinics.   Is that the kind of student work experience NDP supports?

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Josh, are you saying anti-choice groups should continue getting government funding??  They got $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.  They spend the cash to harrass women near abortion clinics.   Is that the kind of student work experience NDP supports?

I’m saying no one should be forced to pledge allegiance to a particular point of view as a condition of receiving government funding for a student jobs program.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

I’m saying no one should be forced to pledge allegiance to a particular point of view as a condition of receiving government funding for a student jobs program.

Well I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars going to Christian Crossroads. While they do Humanitarian work overseas, they are crystal clear with their opposition to Marriage Equality.

There was a time the NDP opposes tax dollars going to that organization due to their anti-gay stance.

But I guess Josh would differ on that.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I’m saying no one should be forced to pledge allegiance to a particular point of view as a condition of receiving government funding for a student jobs program.

Well, that's step 1.

Step 2 is when some student who needs a summer job feeling coerced into handing out pamphlets with doctored pictures of third trimester abortions on them.  If she feels differently, should she just go along to get along?

Quote:
If a conservative government tried to require a group to pledge to support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as a condition of funding, most of you would be screaming.  And rightly so.

And if our government, regardless of which party, coughed up some tax dollars to help some organization pay students to hand out pamphlets explaining why unions should be outlawed -- or even criminalized -- would you scream?

Jeebus.  What ever happened to students painting houses and such?  Or driving an ice-cream bike?

josh

It’s always nice to offer a parade of horribles.  But this was a limited program that the Liberals used to play the kind of wedge politics that’s usually the domain of the right.  

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Josh, are you saying anti-choice groups should continue getting government funding??  They got $3.5 Million over the last 5 years.  They spend the cash to harrass women near abortion clinics.   Is that the kind of student work experience NDP supports?

I’m saying no one should be forced to pledge allegiance to a particular point of view as a condition of receiving government funding for a student jobs program.

So if a group refuses to hire LGBTQ youth, they should still get taxpayers' dollars?  This isn't about views, this is about the groups' actitivties and practices.   Government funding is not a right and nobody is actually "forced" to do anything.

josh

No, I said this did not apply to discrimination.  Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

No, I said this did not apply to discrimination.  Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

Then why should the NDP bar potential candidates for being pro-life?

SocialJustice101

As a government sub-contractor, your personal view are always irrelevant, as long as you comply with the code of conduct laid out by the government.   Some organizations and media have interpreted the attestation as a statement of values, which it is not.   It is essentially a code of conduct for a government sub-contractor of sorts.

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

josh wrote:

No, I said this did not apply to discrimination.  Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

Then why should the NDP bar potential candidates for being pro-life?

That’s totally different.  We’re talking about funding for a summer jobs program.  What does acknowledging the right of abortion have anything to do with that?  It’s just a gratuitous effort to score some cheap political points.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

That’s totally different.  We’re talking about funding for a summer jobs program.  What does acknowledging the right of abortion have anything to do with that?  It’s just a gratuitous effort to score some cheap political points.

You said

requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

So pro-lifers would have to "adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with" to run for the party.

Your words.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

Is it really about that though, for groups who (not surprisingly) have certain beliefs that are NOT part of their core mandate.

For example, my reference to the imaginary "Catholic Teenagers Camp Foundation".  If all they want is to take groups of youngsters out to cabins to sing around campfires and go on canoe trips, I would wholeheartedly agree that they should not be forced to deny their personal beliefs to receive funding, when those beliefs aren't part of campfires and canoe trips.  I rip on religion all the time, but I'm OK with that.

Is that sufficient?

Quote:
Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

They're not being coerced to say they agree with something they don't.

They're being expected to say that they won't use everyone's tax dollars to actively fight it.

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

josh wrote:

That’s totally different.  We’re talking about funding for a summer jobs program.  What does acknowledging the right of abortion have anything to do with that?  It’s just a gratuitous effort to score some cheap political points.

You said

requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

So pro-lifers would have to "adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with" to run for the party.

Your words.

I think I pointed out the distinction in what you quoted.

Mighty Middle Mighty Middle's picture

josh wrote:

I think I pointed out the distinction in what you quoted.

Which is disingenuous

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

Is it really about that though, for groups who (not surprisingly) have certain beliefs that are NOT part of their core mandate.

For example, my reference to the imaginary "Catholic Teenagers Camp Foundation".  If all they want is to take groups of youngsters out to cabins to sing around campfires and go on canoe trips, I would wholeheartedly agree that they should not be forced to deny their personal beliefs to receive funding, when those beliefs aren't part of campfires and canoe trips.  I rip on religion all the time, but I'm OK with that.

Is that sufficient?

Quote:
Only to requiring someone to state that they adhere to a viewpoint they do not agree with.

They're not being coerced to say they agree with something they don't.

They're being expected to say that they won't use everyone's tax dollars to actively fight it.

From what I’ve read, they are being asked to check a box stating that they will “respect” reproductive rights.  

brookmere

brookmere wrote:
I don't think Singh is stupid either. This is on him too.
If this was just a rogue action by Culen, I'll take that back.

josh

Mighty Middle wrote:

josh wrote:

I think I pointed out the distinction in what you quoted.

Which is disingenuous

Receipt of public funding for a student jobs program and being a member in good standing of a political party are totally different.  

SocialJustice101

"Respect reproductive rights" is not the same as agreeing with reproductive rights.  

The federal website was updated to clarify that "respect" means you will not actively campaign against the rights.   https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-clarify-lgbtq-and-abortions-rights-attestation-for-summer-jobs-funding-1.3771910

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
From what I’ve read, they are being asked to check a box stating that they will “respect” reproductive rights.  

That seems reasonable.  They don't have to like those rights, nor agree with them, but they can't use everyone's money to fight them.

I might think that a good speed limit on Canada's highways is 200kph -- like some Canadian Autobahn.  But if I can respect the actual speed limit, what do I have to complain about?  And if I do respect that speed limit, why should anyone pull me over?  What right of mine is being denied here?

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

"Respect reproductive rights" is not the same as agreeing with reproductive rights.  

The federal website was updated to clarify that "respect" means you will not actively campaign against the rights.   https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-clarify-lgbtq-and-abortions-rights-attestation-for-summer-jobs-funding-1.3771910

So they are being asked to sacrifice their right to express a political view on an issue in order to receive funding.  That is a terrible precedent to set.

And what about the right of freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of expression that they gave?

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:
So they are being asked to sacrifice their right to express a political view on an issue in order to receive funding.  That is a terrible precedent to set.

And what about the right of freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of expression that they gave?

Did you read the link?  They are not sacrificing any rights.   Freedom of speech / expression means you will not get arrested for your speech / expression.   It does NOT mean everyone is entitled to government funding, regardless of their activities and conduct.   That's not how governments spend money.  Every government sub-contractor must abide by certain guidelines.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

As a government sub-contractor, your personal view are always irrelevant, as long as you comply with the code of conduct laid out by the government.   Some organizations and media have interpreted the attestation as a statement of values, which it is not.   It is essentially a code of conduct for a government sub-contractor of sorts.

 

Touché!

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

josh wrote:
So they are being asked to sacrifice their right to express a political view on an issue in order to receive funding.  That is a terrible precedent to set.

And what about the right of freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of expression that they gave?

Did you read the link?  They are not sacrificing any rights.   Freedom of speech / expression means you will not get arrested for your speech / expression.   It does NOT mean everyone is entitled to government funding, regardless of their activities and conduct.   That's not how governments spend money.  Every government sub-contractor must abide by certain guidelines.

No it doesn’t simply mean arrest.  There just doesn’t seem to be a recognition of the slippery slope that this could present.  It’s a double edged sword.

SocialJustice101

Josh, it's not a slippery slope since that's how it's always been conducted.   Charities already have a 10% limit on their political activities in order to retain charitable status.  The Canadian Arab Federation lost funding due to controversial comments.  The court ruled that their freedom of speech was not violated.   Withdrawal of funding does not constitute violation of freedom of speech.  Funding is completely optional, at the discretion of the government.

Rev Pesky

It would be interesting to see what the leader of the NDP has to say about this. I wonder where he is?

cco

josh wrote:

If a conservative government tried to require a group to pledge to support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as a condition of funding, most of you would be screaming.  And rightly so.  This is no different,

Most Babblers seem to be in agreement that neither religious tax exemptions nor religious subsidies are going anywhere, but I have a modest proposal for averaging out the injustice. How about:

If you receive a religious exemption from paying taxes, you're barred from receiving any other subsidy from the government.

Because hey, we don't want to crimp your style. If your religion forbids you from rendering unto Caesar, we get it. But it's a bit churlish to then insist that Caesar render unto you your own schools, summer interns to groom, or any other population to indoctrinate, funded by the taxes you aren't paying. Much like physicians in Canada are free to run entirely private practices, but if they charge for treatment, they aren't supposed to double-dip in the public system as well.

quizzical

you people ever been to a bible camp?

they're all about preaching to kids plus doing fun stuff.

Josh our tax dollars should not be funding students to indoctrinate kids.

maybe we should be funding residential schools then too?

am pretty offended that some here are advocating they should get to access tax dollars to promote their agenda.

i guess it's ok with the mens like you josh as it only effects women's rights and lives.

Pages