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

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
No, they didn't just pull the money from somewhere else to pick those hateful sexist anti-choice cherries. They cancelled.

Seems the cherry festival is some kind of Catholic thing, and presumably that's why this is an insurmountable problem for them or whatever.

You're right that there's nothing wrong with those cherries, and no reason why the organizers couldn't say that a cherry festival wasn't going to oppose anyone's rights.  Evidently it was more important to them to pretend they were being asked something they aren't. 

Quote:
Rogal interprets the attestation differently. Regardless of whether the government says the attestation is about a group’s actions rather than its beliefs, checking it is in effect a statement of belief, he said.

If he wants to make stuff up, that's his right I guess.  But let's not pretend that just because he believes a wrong thing that it must therefore be a right thing.  If I want to believe that my bank PIN number is "the number of the beast", that's my problem, isn't it?

 

josh

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

I would think that co-ordinating a cherry festival would be similar to serving meals to the homeless.  There's nothing confusing or difficult here, josh.

6079_Smith_W

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

josh

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

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

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

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

josh

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

6079_Smith_W

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

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

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

When the government says:

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

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

Quote:
And my guess is you have never been to Bruno SK

That would probably be a safe guess for/by anyone/anytime.

But again, the lynchpin of this festival is, and always has been, a free high-school student to run the whole thing?

C'mon.  Pass the fucking collection plate.  Start a GoFundMe.  Do whatever you'd do if there were no such job program.

Seems the CSJ (Canada Summer Jobs) program started AFTER the Bruno Cherry Festival.  How did they manage before CSJ?

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would I not do that, Smith?

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

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

josh

laine lowe wrote:

I don't get why they couldn't sign the attestation that the cherry festival was not about promoting anti-choice or anti-LGBT positions that the affiliated church might hold.

Because that’s not what they were asked.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

When the government says:

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

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

 

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

Core mandate is simply intended action.  This isn't hard, josh.  Can you not  see any difference between belief and action?  Are you really going on record to say that they're synonyms?

The government did all they could be expected to do to explain the difference.  The cherry festival Xtians just fell over clutching their leg like some Soccer player.

"Oh, I've been wounded!!!"

 

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

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

 

Pondering

More students  are getting jobs just with other organizations. Some organizations decided that they could not in good faith check off the box. That was their choice. It's a shame the Festival didn't apply under a different organization so that they could check the box off. Maybe they can do that next year.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would I not do that, Smith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

6079_Smith_W

Yup.

And the federal government has acknowledged that flaw, and said they would be open to changing it next year.

Even if it was up for debate you'd think the responsible thing to do would be for the government to default to the applicants until the correction is made, and not let small town (where there are few enough jobs) events get cancelled on a point of hubris.

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

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

garden

The examples and explainer that the government provided suggest there are two cases where one should be unable to sign the statement. 

One concerns the core mandate, which is not exactly the same thing as core mission although some media have used the two interchangeably. Core mandate refers to main activity of the organization, e.g. to provide meals or whatever, whereas a core mission can be more either belief or activity or both.  The core mandate must be consistent with rights so that excludes organizations whose main activity is to picket women outside abortion clinics, for example, even if the money they are asking the government for is just for someone to file office papers and not picket.  The idea here is the government funds would then free up funds for people to picket abortion clinics, so it is a round about way of getting government funds to work against the rights of others.

The other concerns the specific job to be funded. So even if an organization's main activity is providing meals, if they want to hire a summer student to picket abortion sites, they are ineligible. 

Probably the most troublesome part (for some churches) would be if the job requirements violate rights. For example, if they will require that student to sign a morality clause that discriminates against gays, the organization should not sign the statement.  I can see situations where religious organizations who run a camp or meal service might feel they can't sign because of their beliefs.  If they feel the students hired must show they share the same religious beliefs and if those beliefs include homosexuality being a sin, they may feel they can't sign because of their beliefs.  Religious organizations are given some leeway in discriminating in hiring that other employers would not be given, but it seems unlikely that the courts would decide the government must fund such discrimination in its summer job program.  

Pogo Pogo's picture

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

cco

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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

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

6079_Smith_W

Because they aren't the ones whose principles are on the line, and I expect there are also some in those ranks who are happy to see religious groups forced to choose between making a false declaration and being denied funding.

Or are just pleased to see any situation where they are denied funding.

But to repeat again, the government has already acknowledged the wording was unclear. Why are you posing it as a question?

 

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

6079_Smith_W

Not for those who refused to sign, he hasn't. And frankly, not for me either. And the government has acknowledged that the form was unclear. That some here don't understand the point isn't really surprising because it isn't a point of principle for you.

But if you don't get that, consider this: given the absolutist arguments in this thread, you know if any of them DID sign (even with the government assurance that words don't mean what they say) some smarmy pedant would hold it up as proof that they had in fact signed away their opposition in principle to abortion. And that smarmy pedant would be quite right in saying so. Because it is actually what the words say.

About the only think nailed is there isn't going to be agreement on this. But as I have said already, I am curious if the Trudeau government is going to show the same hubris on this and say sign it or fuck you in an election year.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) all its communications on the topic

2) the form

3) the interpretation document.

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

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

Yeah. Clear. As. Mud.

Rev Pesky

Having been born and raised in a Christian family, I can tell you that the Christian religion contains within itself a belief that the world will always be against you. This was drilled into us over and over and over again. The result of that is that Christians are the worst whiners on the face of the planet. Read some of the comments after the Supreme Court decision on the TWU 'pledge', and you'll see what I mean.

So I'm sorry, but I don't take their whining about this issue any more seriously than I take any other of their fine whines.

JKR

So Jesus turned water into whine!

Pondering

I don't think they will be happy with the clarified wording whatever it may be. I think the Liberals are perfectly happy to have this "controversy".  It was a means for the Liberals to underline their dedication to women's and LGBTQ rights. The people who are offended are people who are unlikely to vote Liberal anyway. The Liberals show off their progressiveness. 

6079_Smith_W

Well you got the "show off" part right.

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

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

Caissa

This was a tempest in a tea pot. These groups should understand the meaning of "core mandate". I think they were intentionally picking a fight with the Government. Scheer nonsense.

6079_Smith_W

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

quizzical

Caissa wrote:

This was a tempest in a tea pot. These groups should understand the meaning of "core mandate". I think they were intentionally picking a fight with the Government. Scheer nonsense.

:D best post yet

Pogo Pogo's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

Pogo Pogo's picture

Caissa wrote:

This was a tempest in a tea pot. These groups should understand the meaning of "core mandate". I think they were intentionally picking a fight with the Government. Scheer nonsense.

 

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

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

Pondering

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

There is no religious question. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pogo Pogo's picture

It was a question that only cause problems for religous groups. That is close to a spelling flame.

Would the new group apply for charitable status?  What administrative overhead cost would it have to assume? As a percentage of the budget I would guess a lot.

That is a big assumption to say that people organize activities under a banner just to bring glory to their church.  I can think of countless counter examples where the church is used as a vehicle for a group of peoples initiatives.  The church provides a building to meet and perhaps some support, but the activities are more often than developed from the bottom up.  Top down stuff usually fails.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pondering

Pogo wrote:
 It was a question that only cause problems for religous groups. That is close to a spelling flame.  

There are religious organizations that had no trouble checking the box. It was about the promotion of LGBTQ rights which is part of the mandate of the program, and respecting a woman's reproductive rights. Some religions have a problem with that but that doesn't mean the Liberals were targeting religion. 

Pogo wrote:
 Would the new group apply for charitable status?  What administrative overhead cost would it have to assume? As a percentage of the budget I would guess a lot.  

I worked for a company that had 50 companies under one roof with a couple of hundred employees. The new entity could be a desk in the same room and a part-time worker. Yes of course it would still apply for charitable status as it would still be a charity. 

Pogo wrote:
 That is a big assumption to say that people organize activities under a banner just to bring glory to their church.  I can think of countless counter examples where the church is used as a vehicle for a group of peoples initiatives. 

Then they should have no trouble doing the same activities under a different banner so they need not have any moral quams checking the box. 

Martin N.

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

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

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

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Pogo wrote:
 It was a question that only cause problems for religous groups. That is close to a spelling flame.  

There are religious organizations that had no trouble checking the box. It was about the promotion of LGBTQ rights which is part of the mandate of the program, and respecting a woman's reproductive rights. Some religions have a problem with that but that doesn't mean the Liberals were targeting religion. 

Pogo wrote:
 Would the new group apply for charitable status?  What administrative overhead cost would it have to assume? As a percentage of the budget I would guess a lot.  

I worked for a company that had 50 companies under one roof with a couple of hundred employees. The new entity could be a desk in the same room and a part-time worker. Yes of course it would still apply for charitable status as it would still be a charity. 

Pogo wrote:
 That is a big assumption to say that people organize activities under a banner just to bring glory to their church.  I can think of countless counter examples where the church is used as a vehicle for a group of peoples initiatives. 

Then they should have no trouble doing the same activities under a different banner so they need not have any moral quams checking the box. 

Your arrogance in telling folks what they should believe is exceeded only by Trudeau himself. You can't defend your freedoms by attempting to limit someone else's. 

I'm pro choice and suspicious of all religions but a little prosetylising never hurt anyone. Trudeau is offensive and dead wrong to attach funding to ideology.

cco

Martin N. wrote:

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

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

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
His zeal to punish those who dare to not to agree with his position on abortion is nothing short of fascism.

Are you just venting your personal feelings about "Herr" Trudeau?

Because the last I checked, the Charter is more than just "Herr" Trudeau's opinions.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

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

Sean in Ottawa

I think it is strange for people here to suggest that this is a simple issue. It is not even merely a for or against question.

I disagree with those who say that the government cannot enforce this if they want to. I am very mixed about the selective chocies in what they are enforcing and the lack of clarity but that is another thing.

Some people say that an answer to "the" question is simple. It is -- when the question is simple.  The question is confused between an ordinary meaning, possible interpretations and an interpretation document. This is not necessary.

The government does have the right to exclude from funding either:

1) groups who do not respect consitutional rights

or

2) activities / or experiences that do not respect these

Introducing concepts of core mandate (and at what level of a multi-level organization is this applied and whod decides what is core and what is not) is not being clear. The government ought to be clear and accountable.

The charity structure of this country is rife with political-religious biases against the constitutional rights the government is outlining. The accountability the government owes is not just to the organizations (for whom I have little sympathy) but for the population of Canada, knowing that organizations who challenge constitutional rights on religious or philosophical grounds provide a substnatial proportion of both summer job funding and even more important service delivery.

We have had many years of cuts and funding freezes such tha tthe government relies on this setor that it does not much like to deliver social services to many Canadians who often are not even members of the group seeking funding.

The government could have left out all organizations who advocate against any constitutional rights. It does have the right to do this. But it should be responsible to communciate this and to say what its intentions are to fill any gap created. Instead it annouces that it is doing this with fanfare to those in favour; tells those against that this is not what it really means; pretends to everyone else that it is not a big deal; forces people applying for these programs, to make determinations based on its contradictions.

I am all for defunding religion. Why should it be protected from taxes? I am all for requiring organizations that provide services and employment to agree to ALL constitutional rights -- not just some of them. But the government ought to be upfront about the size of the sector and it how it will replace them.

If this is not the intent, the government can say what its real intent is in the form of a question that does not need ANY interpretation.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

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

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

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

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:
 Then they should have no trouble doing the same activities under a different banner so they need not have any moral quams checking the box. 

Your arrogance in telling folks what they should believe is exceeded only by Trudeau himself. You can't defend your freedoms by attempting to limit someone else's. 

I'm not telling people what they should believe. Just the opposite. The "core mandate" checkbox is about the organization not the individuals running it. The people funding it and working at it can believe whatever they want. 

6079_Smith_W

@ josh

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

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

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

Again, hubris.

 

Pages