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

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

ya it does in section 7.

 

Pondering

progressive17 wrote:
 Against slavery? Don't shop at the dollar store.  

Slavery is something one set of people imposes on another through force or coercion. Democratic countries have reached a consensus that it is wrong to impose slavery on other people and that people have individual rights. I think most people would agree that slavery constitutes an unfair trade advantage to those who use them. 

progressive17 wrote:
  Against global warming?  Don't fly, drive, or eat meat.  

Global warming affects everyone directly. Another area in which collective action is more effective because we have a common interest. 

progressive17 wrote:
 Against poverty? Donate some money. 

I do. Poverty is another area that affects us all. Paraphasing Oliver Wendell Holmes taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Poverty increases crime. Again, dealing with it is more effective collectively. 

progressive17 wrote:
   Against loneliness? Spend some time with someone who could use some  company. 

Agreed, but we can also act collectively to set up systems that will protect us from the same fate. It's like insurance. 

Society is coming to a consensus that what we do to ourselves is our business. Suicide is no longer illegal. We can even get help under limited circumstances. 

Abortion is something that happens to a single woman, by choice or not, not to society. It doesn't force anything on anyone else. LGBTQ marriage only concerns the individuals involved. 

I'm not saying opponents to abortion have no right to argue for what they believe collectively. They have and they do. They just aren't entitled to government money. 

This is what justices of the Supreme Court had to say in 1988.

Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote:

"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."[27]

Justice Bertha Wilson wrote:

"The decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within the class of protected decisions [because it will have] profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman… The right to reproduce or not to reproduce… is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being… The purpose of [section 251] is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee."[39]

The decisions were unanimous. Women's rights are recognized more than ever before and I don't see that turning back.  I don't see any form of abortion law being found acceptable by the Supreme Court.

So no, I am not afraid that anti-abortionists will succeed if we get them riled up by the "injustice" of denying them funding. 

6079_Smith_W

quizzical wrote:

i take your words as levelling threats smith.

I'm not sure why you would see them as a threat. What do you imagine I am going to do?  I support choice, and I do not vote Conservative. And I am atheist. I very much want to see access to reproductive health protected. That is one of the big reasons why I think what Trudeau is doing is arrogant, and foolish, and that there is a good chance it may backfire.

What is going on now is very much like what I saw in the late 90s with the Liberals' gratuitous behaviour with the long gun registry, and you know how that ended. Why was that a flashpoint for people where marriage equality has not been? Because in the latter case they didn't rub people's noses in it. Sadly that is exactly what they are doing right now, and they run the risk of having it come back to bite all of us.

And Pondering, those opinions were not unanimous - only the ruling on the legality of Canada's abortion law was. There was some disagreement about how far those protections can and should go. The fact that there are no legal restrictions isn't as solid a protection as many imagine it is, and if you think access to reproductive services isn't under threat you might want to take a closer look.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
People have said that in Canada that the centre is not holding and that positions are opening up. There are lots of examples of this in political discussion.

And yet policy wise the three major parties all choose to hug the centre. There were many lines Harper didn't cross even when he had a majority. Canada has not become polarized like the US. The left of the NDP might feel that way but it isn't so. We have a very different history and culture. With the possible exception of the separatist movement no province has elected a party with an extremist platform. Even the PQ had to promise referendums.

Our provinces and territories are very different. Compromise and live and let live policies created Canada not wars. Provinces joined based on maintaining independence in significant areas. 

As MM noted we developed a very different judicial culture. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/01/18/approval-of-us-leadership...

In Canada, 20 per cent of respondents said they approved of the job performance of U.S. leadership; 76 per cent said they disapproved.

While that's appalling it is nothing like the US. 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394384-poll-trump-approval-rating-t...

President Trump’s approval rating has ticked up to 47 percent in the new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll released exclusively to The Hill, a 2 point hike from last month.

Trump's approval rating was lifted in part by a 10 point climb among Hispanic voters. His approval rating rose by 6 points among Republicans and by 4 points among Democrats compared to last month’s poll. According to the same poll, Trump's approval rating reached its highest point last year, at 49 percent.

Rob and Doug Ford are bad enough but Trump is truly in a league of his own. The US is getting very scary. I hope the other 51% get out the vote. 

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

progressive17 wrote:
 Against slavery? Don't shop at the dollar store.  

Slavery is something one set of people imposes on another through force or coercion. Democratic countries have reached a consensus that it is wrong to impose slavery on other people and that people have individual rights. I think most people would agree that slavery constitutes an unfair trade advantage to those who use them. 

progressive17 wrote:
  Against global warming?  Don't fly, drive, or eat meat.  

Global warming affects everyone directly. Another area in which collective action is more effective because we have a common interest. 

progressive17 wrote:
 Against poverty? Donate some money. 

I do. Poverty is another area that affects us all. Paraphasing Oliver Wendell Holmes taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Poverty increases crime. Again, dealing with it is more effective collectively. 

progressive17 wrote:
   Against loneliness? Spend some time with someone who could use some  company. 

Agreed, but we can also act collectively to set up systems that will protect us from the same fate. It's like insurance. 

Society is coming to a consensus that what we do to ourselves is our business. Suicide is no longer illegal. We can even get help under limited circumstances. 

Abortion is something that happens to a single woman, by choice or not, not to society. It doesn't force anything on anyone else. LGBTQ marriage only concerns the individuals involved. 

I'm not saying opponents to abortion have no right to argue for what they believe collectively. They have and they do. They just aren't entitled to government money. 

This is what justices of the Supreme Court had to say in 1988.

Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote:

"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."[27]

Justice Bertha Wilson wrote:

"The decision of a woman to terminate her pregnancy falls within the class of protected decisions [because it will have] profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman… The right to reproduce or not to reproduce… is properly perceived as an integral part of modern woman’s struggle to assert her dignity and worth as a human being… The purpose of [section 251] is to take the decision away from the woman and give it to a committee."[39]

The decisions were unanimous. Women's rights are recognized more than ever before and I don't see that turning back.  I don't see any form of abortion law being found acceptable by the Supreme Court.

So no, I am not afraid that anti-abortionists will succeed if we get them riled up by the "injustice" of denying them funding. 

Sorry, wrong again. Justice Bertha Wilson was dissenting.

"The majority of the judges (5 of 7) had decided that Section 251 violated Canadian women’s constitutional rights to the security of the person. Only one, however, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, declared that women had a right to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Moreover, all of the majority decisions conceded the state’s interest in protecting the foetus. 5

Martin N.

quizzical wrote:

ya it does in section 7.

 

No, it does not. Sec 7 guarantees 'security of the person'.  Your confirmation bias makes it impossible for you to understand the inherent danger such assumptions about a false 'rights' protection for pro choice imposes on women. 

Read the dissenting opinion above.

Sean in Ottawa

Martin N. wrote:

quizzical wrote:

ya it does in section 7.

 

No, it does not. Sec 7 guarantees 'security of the person'.  Your confirmation bias makes it impossible for you to understand the inherent danger such assumptions about a false 'rights' protection for pro choice imposes on women. 

Read the dissenting opinion above.

I think you are both incorrect:

1) There is no explicit constitutional protection within the constitution.

2) It is a constritutionally protected right.

Most people do not understand how constitutional law works. what is in the constitution can only be changed by amending formula whereas the body of decisions are cumulative and evolve -- that is why the distinction is important.

However, under weight of law - for the direction of lower courts there is no distinction. This means for the moment there is no difference between an explicitly protected right and one there by a decision of the court.

The difference is that these decisions are interpretations that can be changed through a series of Conservative judges just as they were developed through a series of more progressive judges. This is exactly what the US is facing now.

My argument here is that we should not minimize the dangers to the Canadian political culture or think that we are immune. It also means that it would be preferable to explicitly protect choice in a future amendment, if possible, in order to make it more immune to future distortions from bad decisions. In fact had the Charter been written ten years later, it is possible that this would have been done.

Another risk is the watering down of human rights throguh decisions. This could also come from Conservative judges extending property rights through future decisions.

In other words, the constitution is a living document that evolves through decisions and people should never minimize the importance of protecting that important area of law by guarding the court from bad appointments.

When it comes to the appoint process, Canada is improving and miles ahead of the US. There are still concerns.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/how-a-new-appointment-process-ushers...

People here may remember Harper cvhoosing a judge more for being Conservative than for being qualified. In this case there were a series of eligibility questions.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/supreme-court-justices-exp...

The fact is a bad government can strain and abuse institutions that you might think are stronger than they are. The US is in the middle of discovering that its institutions are not as strong as they thought.

But back to the issue of Choice: yes it is constitutionally protected as a result of decisions. At issue is how well the constitution itself is protected when it comes to the this body of decisions. The text of the constitution is much better protected than the body of decisions that are a part of constitutional law even though the effectiveness may be the same on an issue at a particular moment in time.

This is why it is correct to say that Choice is a Constitutional right and yet it this is not explicit in the text itself.

To clarify the vulnerability: this body of decisions is very powerful and it would be hard to reverse. But it is not as ironclad as a provision in the text itself.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And Pondering, those opinions were not unanimous - only the ruling on the legality of Canada's abortion law was. There was some disagreement about how far those protections can and should go. The fact that there are no legal restrictions isn't as solid a protection as many imagine it is, and if you think access to reproductive services isn't under threat you might want to take a closer look.

Parliament won't discuss anything that interferes with a woman's right to make this decision with her doctor. We have a living constitution and since that ruling 30 years ago society has become even more protective of individual rights which has been reflected in Supreme Court decisions since then. 

Nothing is impossible but I am not at all concerned about anti-abortionists getting riled up over what they perceive to be an injustice. There is no need to appease them. At this point in time and for the foreseeable future abortion rights are safe. If at some point in time that isn't the case letting anti-abortionists get government funding will not impact their views or their determinination to impose them on all women. 

6079_Smith_W

Parliament did discuss it in 2012 - Stephen Woodford's Motion 312. Several cabinet ministers voted in favour of it, including one who stands a good chance of controlling medical services in Alberta after their next election.

Maybe you should read this:

https://ricochet.media/en/2104/andrew-scheer-and-the-anti-abortion-movem...

Pondering

I meant to acknowledge that I was wrong  about the decision being unanimous.

The rest of my comments stand although I agree with Sean that we can't take it for granted. I think the fight for trans rights and indigenous rights are part of the same cultural advancement so that as long as we fight for those rights women's rights will also be safeguarded. It's all part of the same mindset. 

We are not so different from the US that we can afford to be comfortable but Canadians are better educated. We did not go the way of charter schools. Canadian children have been seeped in environmentalism not creationism. We find the notion of having guns to protect ourselves from the government bizarre. The deliberate fostering of multiculturalism and diversity also fosters the live and let live philosophy. Immigrants are huge supporters of Medicare. So are businesses for that matter. It's one of our selling points. 

There is no doubt that we are impacted by US culture but Americans and Canadians cherish different rights. Americans protect hate speech. Canadians protect the targets of hate speech.  Neoliberalism threatens us too but social conservatism doesn't. 

Martin N.

Sean said:

"My argument here is that we should not minimize the dangers to the Canadian political culture or think that we are immune.........."

Thats the point I was trying to make. Although it appear choice is safe today, the anti-abortionists will never give up.

Pondering

Communists will never give up either. Doesn't mean Canada is in danger of becoming  communist any time soon. It's possible, not likely. 

laine lowe laine lowe'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.

Absolutely. The government (program officers) apologizing for lack of clarity is just being mindful of and polite to the vocal complainants. I and many others that cheered this move fully understood the intent of the change and language on the application. If anything, it was direct and concise and not wishywashy like other directions I've seen.

ETA: Reproductive choice should not be up to debate or constitutional navel gazing about how protected those rights are under the constistution. Those who are interested or obsessed with that are enemies of women's rights.

 

6079_Smith_W

Martin N. wrote:

Although it appear choice is safe today, the anti-abortionists will never give up.

I agree with you there is still a great threat - in some ways a growing threat.

I strongly disagree that they will never give up. You only have to look at polls to see opinions have changed. I think that assumption (and some of the attitudes in this thread) says more about false attitudes about religious people.

One thing is for sure - targetting religious people who aren't taking action against abortion sure isn't going to help sway any opinions to acceptance of choice. I see it doing exactly the opposite, and giving the hard liners a reason to get organized and work harder.

After all, to run with that one false assumption, what are people going to do with all that time on their hands when they don't get the funding to run their festival? Where do people here think they are most likely to put their attention?

 

 

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Just scrap the whole program. It is too much trouble.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 ​I strongly disagree that they will never give up. You only have to look at polls to see opinions have changed. I think that assumption (and some of the attitudes in this thread) says more about false attitudes about religious people.  

Not all churches refused to check the box so it isn't about "religion". It is about organizations who persist in fighting against rights for LGBTQ and women's reproductive choice. If that is part of their core mandate I don't want them to receive public funding. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
One thing is for sure - targetting religious people who aren't taking action against abortion sure isn't going to help sway any opinions to acceptance of choice.   

They are not being targeted. If they aren't taking action against abortion they should have no problem checking the box as it is obviously not part of their core mandate. Or if it is, it should be dropped as they are not taking action. 

I'm not trying to sway them. Their beliefs are rooted in faith not science so there is no argument they will accept. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  I see it doing exactly the opposite, and giving the hard liners a reason to get organized and work harder.  

It does not matter. They will lose because there is no evidence that Canada's lack of abortion law is a problem. No viable babies being aborted because their toe has yet to leave the birth canal. In practice late term abortions are very difficult to get because most serious issues are caught long before that would be necessary. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  After all, to run with that one false assumption, what are people going to do with all that time on their hands when they don't get the funding to run their festival? Where do people here think they are most likely to put their attention? 

What false assumption? They can put their time and effort where ever they please including denouncing abortion. They aren't toddlers that can be distracted with a shiny toy, or in this  case a cherry festival. 

The anti-abortion movement in Canada is tiny and demoralized after a decade of Conservative government failed to deliver despite their best efforts. For the minority mandates they accepted the excuse that abortion was too hot a topic but once Harper had his majority they came to realize not even the Conservatives will touch any topic that even hints at threatening women's reproductive rights or LGBTQ rights. They are not going to be newly energized under a Liberal government they have no hope of persuading. 

There will always be some people who will be persuaded but they will not form a critical mass. Anti-abortionists have already thrown their all into the battle and failed miserably even under a Conservative majority government. The diehards will never give up. They will successfully convert a minority into believers but not enough to have any impact.

As always, the election will go to whomever voters trust the most with the economy no matter what their other positions are unless they are extreme which reflects on their ability to manage the economy. 

A minority of Canadians are strongly against abortion. A much larger contingent of Canadians, mainly women but men too, are strongly in favor of a woman's right to choose. Many Canadians, maybe a majority, vaguely think there should be some sort of law preventing babies from being killed minutes before birth but have no idea what kind of law should exist. They just theoretically agree that once a fetus is viable it shouldn't be aborted. 

The devil is in the details. Any attempt to legislate would be a nightmare and probably fought to the Supreme Court with test cases of severe deformity and projected short and painful lives. There would be arguments about how deformed is deformed enough? How short a life span? Days, weeks, months? How painful? Who draws the line? What if the woman needs chemo to live but it will damage the fetus? The decision rests exactly where it should. Between a woman and her doctor. 

Pondering

Here is a case in point. An abortion performed at 35 weeks. 

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-woman-who-had-late-a...

In late April, the couple learned with great joy that they were expecting. It was going to be their first child. At 20 weeks, an ultrasound test showed no abnormalities. “Everything was fine,” she said. They were having a boy. The couple bought clothing and ordered a crib and other supplies.

But then at seven months, a new ultrasound showed the fetus was abnormally small and had skeletal malformations, likely caused by a genetic mutation, the woman said. Doctors at McGill University Health Centre where she was being followed “couldn’t tell us what the baby had, they were guessing,” she said, about the exact nature of the medical condition and the extent of the future disability.

The couple sought a second opinion at another hospital, undergoing several tests, and were told the baby might never walk, she said. “It was really a shock to us. They said it’s a rare disease and that he may need operations on the spine, medical interventions, operations … but they couldn’t say which operations,” she said. “We researched and watched videos of other cases, and there aren’t many. 

“We couldn’t stand it that our baby would suffer like these babies,” she said. “Our termination choice was serious.”

...Rather than fighting the MUHC by mounting a court case, the woman followed the advice of her lawyer and sought an abortion elsewhere. Faced with the prospect of an ethics committee at Ste-Justine Hospital deciding on her request, she ultimately got the abortion at 35 weeks of pregnancy at an unnamed Montreal hospital.

...Since 2005, Quebec covers the costs of late-term abortions done out-of-province, including the travel to the United States and the medical procedure. An estimated 17 to 42 Quebec women go south every year to terminate a third-trimester pregnancy.​

Third trimester pregnancies are not terminated lightly or easily. There is no need for a law defining viability and I don't think it would even be possible. Doctors are not monsters. They don't perform these abortions lightly. Quebec is the second largest province representing around 23% of the Canadian population and still women have to travel out of province and even out of country for the procedure. How ironic that they go to the States. 

Attempts at trying to pass restrictive laws here won't work. Our Charter may not explicitly protect women's right to choose abortion but it does so indirectly as quizzical has pointed out. The Charter doesn't explicitly protect carrying a kirpan either. It is difficult to imagine a law that would not infringe on a woman's right to make decisions concerning her body. 

For anti-abortionists to make any progress they would first have to get politicians to be willing to have discussions in parliament. Then have those politicians write a law that would please more people than it would anger. Women's groups would mobilize like the days of Morgentaler.

In Canada the cost versus benefit analysis on abortion is don't even whisper the word "fetus" or debate the commencement of personhood.

 

6079_Smith_W

What false assumption? Are you kidding me? I can pick them out of every paragraph in your post #317.

And anti-choicers love to get this debate on the tragic, but rare and necessary circumstances of late term abortions. Why are you even going there? It is not what we have been talking about, and it is kind of doing their job for them. If  this is ever fought on those grounds it will mean one of the biggest cornerstones of protection is gone.

Do I need to remind you about this again? This was six years ago. They were not whispering. And during their tenure that same government did cut services - seriously - in areas where they were able to do so without consequence, like overseas.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/motion-on-...

They don't even have to get discussions in parliament to make progress. Many of these decisions - like the one that left P.E.I. without services for 35 years - are made at the provincial level. And when you have the Canadian Medical Association assuming personhood by talking about "feticide" (which they did in 2012) it is also a sign of a potentially major problem, because more than any of these other realms that influences what happens between a woman and her doctor.

Really, false assumptions are being made in both directions in this thread - in ignoring how big the potential threat is on some fronts, and in assuming that some people are incapable of rational thought, and are actively working against choice. That latter one is actually what this thread concerns - groups that have been holding festivals, providing immigrant services, prison services, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with choice, but who have still been targetted by this.

And please don't tell me again that there is no reason why they can't just sign because Justin Trudeau has said words don't mean what they do.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  What false assumption? Are you kidding me? I can pick them out of every paragraph in your post #317.  

Opinions and assumptions are not the same thing. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  And anti-choicers love to get this debate on the tragic, but rare and necessary circumstances of late term abortions. Why are you even going there? It is not what we have been talking about, and it is kind of doing their job for them. If  this is ever fought on those grounds it will mean one of the biggest cornerstones of protection is gone.  

You must be joking. Late term abortions is the first place anti-choicers go. It's  the only ground they have left to fight on and it failed. That is the wedge they want to use to get a law passed. It is  not at all "doing their job for them" because actual real life cases tend to generate compassion for the mother or father dealing with the nightmare not for the angry protesters trying to force them to have a child born to suffer. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Do I need to remind you about this again? This was six years ago. They were not whispering. And during their tenure that same government did cut services - seriously - in areas where they were able to do so without consequence, like overseas.

">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/motion-on-...

From the same article. 

Although it was never expected to pass, the motion exposed a wide gap in the social politics of many Conservative MPs. Several of those who voted against it were careful to explain before the vote that they viewed themselves as "pro-life" but did not want to re-open a debate on abortion. 

The party shut them down. Even pro-life MPs voted against it because they did not want to reopen the debate.   They want it to appear as though pro-lifers have a chance in the Conservative party to keep their votes. Refusing to "reopen the debate" translates into case closed. Not even a whisper of debate. Parties won't even discuss discussing it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 They don't even have to get discussions in parliament to make progress. Many of these decisions - like the one that left P.E.I. without services for 35 years - are made at the provincial level.

It's not that pro-lifers won some battle or that it wasn't happening  on ideological grounds. The government just failed to provide the service. 

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/after-35-years-abortion-available-in...

Q: Why didn’t P.E.I. have local access to abortion services for 35 years?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know if it just became a tradition. The credit [for the centre] has to go to all of the women and men— activists, feminists groups—who fought for this. I just showed up. It’s their victory.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 And when you have the Canadian Medical Association assuming personhood by talking about "feticide" (which they did in 2012) it is also a sign of a potentially major problem, because more than any of these other realms that influences what happens between a woman and her doctor.  

It wasn't the Canadian Medical Association that used the term it was the interim editor of the journal and he was immediately shot down.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/bid-to-curb-fema...

The national body representing Canada's obstetricians and gynecologists contends that Dr. Kale's proposal flies in the face of accepted standards for patient care and fails to acknowledge that changing deep-rooted cultural beliefs, not imposing heavy-handed restrictions, is the key.

Pro-lifers tried to use sex-selective abortions as a wedge and failed. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Really, false assumptions are being made in both directions in this thread - in ignoring how big the potential threat is on some fronts, and in assuming that some people are incapable of rational thought, and are actively working against choice.   

I think you would like there to be a potential threat even though every attempt in recent decades to reopen the debate has failed. I don't know where the 'rational thought" idea is coming from. I never suggested they can't think. There are people actively working against choice where abortion is concerned. Google it. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 That latter one is actually what this thread concerns - groups that have been holding festivals, providing immigrant services, prison services, and other things that have absolutely nothing to do with choice, but who have still been targetted by this. 

This is a summer jobs program. If all that is dependent on it then they weren't doing all that much to begin with. Organizations whose core mandate includes opposition to Charter protected rights or reproductive rights were targeted. Those organizations put themselves in that category by refusing to check the box. If opposition to those rights is not part of their core mandate they should have no trouble checking the box. If it is part of their core mandate I have no trouble refusing to subsidize students to place them under that sort of influence. I would rather subsidize the students going to other organizations that don't oppose charter or reproductive rights as part of their core mandate. 

Nothing is stopping those organizations from continuing their other good works unless events like the Cherry Festival depended entirely on subsidized student workers. 

 There will always be anti-abortionists. In that sense they will never be defeated. They are defeated in the sense that nobody wants to even talk about it except them. No one is debating it just like no one is debating the legality of gay marriage. There are still people against it but they best not say so in civilized company. It's just not up for debate. Neither is abortion. 

I am not in the least bit nervous that barring a Cherry Festival to keep them busy the fanatics will turn their attention to the abortion battle. Bring em on. They'll just get shot down again. 

6079_Smith_W

Really, the biggest indication that this is the wrong way of doing things is treating it like a fight you want someone to "bring on" rather than a question of attitudes and respect we should be looking to change.

If you are looking for a fight, you will get it. Not a threat. A warning.

And just one example of a false assumption:

"Their beliefs are rooted in faith not science so there is no argument they will accept."

One look at polls on public opinion around abortion will show that is false. And that change in values was not achieved by insulting people's intelligence and principles.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

My life would definitely have been better if my mother had had an abortion. 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 Really, the biggest indication that this is the wrong way of doing things is treating it like a fight you want someone to "bring on" rather than a question of attitudes and respect we should be looking to change.  

The fight is over. They lost. I'm not looking to change them. Not everyone is going to be pro-choice and that's okay as long as they don't try to impose it on anyone else. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

And just one example of a false assumption:

"Their beliefs are rooted in faith not science so there is no argument they will accept."

One look at polls on public opinion around abortion will show that is false. And that change in values was not achieved by insulting people's intelligence and principles.

It is not insulting people's intelligence or principles to say their opinion on a topic is rooted in religion. While there may be some exceptions the primary group of people who are against abortion are religious. There's a connection. 

The change in values came from women and the LGBTQ community demanding rights not from "respecting" alternative viewpoints on what rights we should be permitted. The battle has been long and militant. It was people who are against the rights of women and the LGBTQ that forced the fight by trying to control our bodies or deny us rights. 

Politicians refuse to discuss or debate the topic because the fight is over even if some skirmishs pop up once in a while. Pockets of Canada still have some strong anti-abortion sentiments or politicians wouldn't be claiming to be "pro-life".  Those pockets are not near big enough to impact legislation or to prevent clinics from opening and serving women. 

Every example you brought up of the supposed "threat" posed by anti-abortionists was a defeat for them. They are being ignored by most people and humoured by politicians who want their votes but "don't want to reopen the debate".

I have no problem with any politicians whose personal beliefs are against abortion as long as it remains their personal belief not something they want to impose on others. Trudeau was challenged on his stance because he is Catholic and his response was that his religion is separate from his job as liberal leader or potential PM. I can respect that as long as he respects the right of women to choose for themselves. 

Sean in Ottawa

I think the anti-choice tactics have evolved significantly enough that the threats don't always look the same. Restrictions in the availability of services and non-direct barriers can be challenged in court but conservative judges there could uphold them. This is without the kind of discussion that would expose the tactics directly. And that is a lot less than the kind of direction the US is in now.

quizzical

the mens here, left and right, just seem to wanna say "watch out or we will strip you of your rights" "cause ....for whatever reason".

i still take it all as implied threats esp. when taken in tandem with the #metoo thread and the anti-woman taking a stand present there.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

And that is a very important point. If those of us who protect the rights of women drop our guard for whatever reason, we could find ourselves in the hell that women are experiencing in the US. The tactics used there have been many, some adopted here in Canada with a number of backbench private members' bills introduced under the Harper government. Luckily they were not successful but they sure did muddy the waters in terms of what the majority of Canadians thought was reasonable (i.e. late term abortions, femicide abortions).

 

6079_Smith_W

It is not that good everywhere here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/nova-scotia-one-of-canadas...

But again, this so far away from matters of conscience regarding funding projects it is ridiculous.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

No it is not good everywhere here and trying to improve access to safe abortions without penalizing the patient in all provinces should be a high priority in federal-provincial health discussions. A brave, pro-women government would make federal funding transfers contingent on doing so.

From the article:

"After her blood work came back positive, Mackenzie recalled the nurse congratulating her on the pregnancy in front of other patients.

"I never regretted my decision to have an abortion," she said. "But it felt like that waiting period and all those tests were to shame me, to make me feel like an irresponsible slut, to punish me. It felt like it was a price I had to pay to obtain an abortion in a country where my right to choose is legally protected.""

That's was how things worked in Ontario up until the late 80s. It was disgusting that women had to be treated so poorly, made to feel like morally deficient etc.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
"I never regretted my decision to have an abortion," she said. "But it felt like that waiting period and all those tests were to shame me, to make me feel like an irresponsible slut, to punish me.

Well, if she ever changes her mind, and does regret it, and does feel like an irresponsible slut, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Saskatoon -- the "parent corporation" of the group in charge of the Cherry Festival -- can help:

Healing the Pain of Abortion

And for anyone only considering it:

Reasons for supporting laws against abortion: a response to Michael Coren published in The Prairie Messenger

Sounds like the fish rots from the head down.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

the mens here, left and right, just seem to wanna say "watch out or we will strip you of your rights" "cause ....for whatever reason".

i still take it all as implied threats esp. when taken in tandem with the #metoo thread and the anti-woman taking a stand present there.

 

The first paragraph is entirely imagination. Any concern does not become a threat when NOBODY here is saying that they want this, can make it happen or would gain anything from it.

You have said this without justification a couple times. Can you explain exactly why when someone says that they are concerned about this you take it as them threatening this - or suggesting in any way they either can make this happen or want it to?

This seems to be an unjustified smear on the men here who actually seem to support the same ends you do.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the mens here, left and right, just seem to wanna say "watch out or we will strip you of your rights" "cause ....for whatever reason".

i still take it all as implied threats esp. when taken in tandem with the #metoo thread and the anti-woman taking a stand present there.

 

The first paragraph is entirely imagination. Any concern does not become a threat when NOBODY here is saying that they want this, can make it happen or would gain anything from it.

You have said this without justification a couple times. Can you explain exactly why when someone says that they are concerned about this you take it as them threatening this - or suggesting in any way they either can make this happen or want it to?

This seems to be an unjustified smear on the men here who actually seem to support the same ends you do.

She doesn't mean you. It isn't all the men but I have certainly read comments that suggest we shouldn't be too militant for fear of the backlash. For example, the suggesting that Me Too is increasing the divide between men and women implies that women are responsible for increasing the divide therefore responsible for fixing it. 

In this thread Smith has implied if we are "unfair" to anti-abortionists who want to have cherry festivals they might be more motivated to attack abortion rights. 

We are very attuned to "be nice" messages because we are so very used to them. 

Pondering

laine lowe wrote:

And that is a very important point. If those of us who protect the rights of women drop our guard for whatever reason, we could find ourselves in the hell that women are experiencing in the US. The tactics used there have been many, some adopted here in Canada with a number of backbench private members' bills introduced under the Harper government. Luckily they were not successful but they sure did muddy the waters in terms of what the majority of Canadians thought was reasonable (i.e. late term abortions, femicide abortions).

Nobody is dropping out. I'm just not willing to placade anti-abortionists by giving them money. 

To give them money despite their core mandate including opposing reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights is counter-productive to defending those rights. 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

In this thread Smith has implied if we are "unfair" to anti-abortionists who want to have cherry festivals they might be more motivated to attack abortion rights.

In fact, the federal government has admitted that the wording in their application form is problematic, and may be changed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/26/labour-minister-patty-hajdu-wil...

But they still expected people to sign it. So this isn't me making things up. It is their screwup, and they blamed it on the people affected, many of whom are doing nothing to challenge choice.

Do I think that unfair attack on the part of the federal government runs the risk of pushing some who have kept the peace to action? Yes. It certainly isn't going to make them more sympathetic. At the very least it is going to motivate some to vote for the only party that has been opposing the wording on the form - also the party with the worst record of rolling back access to abortion. .

When the Conservatives get back into power it won't be a question of correcting the language; that restriction will be removed

So in fact I am not making that up either. I am sorry if you do not like it being pointed out. Like I said, if some are looking for a fight rather than to continue to change public attitudes for the better, they are likely to get that fight.

But in fact, I'm not the one assuming that people who personally oppose abortion are going to take action on it. That is coming from those in this thread who assume they are incapable of rational thought and won't listen to reasoning. I am just saying that there will be some who take that course - at least on election day.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

In fact, the federal government has admitted that the wording in their application form is problematic, and may be changed.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/03/26/labour-minister-patty-hajdu-wil...   

They didn't say it was problematic. They just agreed to change it next year for people who are comprehension challenged. It is my hope that the clarification makes it more difficult for them to sign. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Do I think that unfair attack on the part of the federal government runs the risk of pushing some who have kept the peace to action? Yes. It certainly isn't going to make them more sympathetic. At the very least it is going to motivate some to vote for the only party that has been opposing the wording on the form - also the party with the worst record of rolling back access to abortion.   

That's the party they support anyway. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 ​Like I said, if some are looking for a fight rather than to continue to change public attitudes for the better, they are likely to get that fight. 

The fight has been going on for decades. Women haven't won it by being nice and understanding to anti-abortionists. We won it through militancy. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 But in fact, I'm not the one assuming that people who personally oppose abortion are going to take action on it. 

I'm fairly certain they preach it on Sundays at the church. I don't care if they are not using this specific money to argue against abortion rights or LGBTQ rights. They claim it is part of their core mandate to oppose rights for LGBTQ and to oppose women's independent reproductive rights. Whether or not they actively strive to meet their core mandate is immaterial. If they are not striving for it then maybe they should drop it from their core mandate. Problem solved.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
   That is coming from those in this thread who assume they are incapable of rational thought and won't listen to reasoning. I am just saying that there will be some who take that course - at least on election day. 

I see nothing irrational about their behavior, only their beliefs. They are opposed to LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights as they are currently bestowed. They don't want to sign a paper saying this opposition isn't part of their core mandate. I admire their honesty. 

If both the Liberals and NDP supported legalization of prostitution there is a strong possibility I would vote Conservative for the first time in my life. I might choose to abstain but I don't think so. That is  how strongly I feel on the issue of prostitution. 

Other people feel that strongly about abortion and they have every right to vote Conservative on the topic. If I believed that abortion was murder I would probably do the same. 

It's a perfect example of why I believe the NDP has to focus rather than adopt every social movement they think is on the left in an attempt to gather enough movements together to win an election. 

6079_Smith_W

@ Pondering

Thing is, when Liberals pull stuff like this is is no longer about people's opposition to abortion, it is about defending themselves from discrimination based on their beliefs.

And no they don't all vote Conservative. Mennonite values on international social justice and pacifism don't exactly jive with Conservative jingoism. And do you think there are no Catholics in your province who vote Liberal?

And probably a confusing example, but let's not forget that arch anti-abortion campaigner Joe Borowski was an NDP cabinet minister.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Pondering

Thing is, when Liberals pull stuff like this is is no longer about people's opposition to abortion, it is about defending themselves from discrimination based on their beliefs.

And no they don't all vote Conservative. Mennonite values on international social justice and pacifism don't exactly jive with Conservative jingoism. And do you think there are no Catholics in your province who vote Liberal?

And probably a confusing example, but let's not forget that arch anti-abortion campaigner Joe Borowski was an NDP cabinet minister.

Yes there are Catholics in Quebec who vote Liberal. They also have abortions and get divorced. 

Just like I have to choose my priorites when voting so do Mennonites. If they put abortion above all other social justice issues so must vote Conservative that is their right. 

If their beliefs include supporting slavery I would discriminate against them for that as well so discrimination isn't automatically negative. I object to organizations whose core mandate includes opposing rights for women and LGBTQ recieving government money. In my own opinion that is a reasonable position to take. 

I don't find Joe Borowski confusing at all. I would not have voted for him but I wasn't one of his constituents. Perhaps you are making the point that not only Conservatives are anti-abortion? While that may be true the federal NDP are not with him. There are anti-abortion Liberal MPs too I'm sure. As long as they keep it to themselves I'm good. 

Any stance on anything is always going to offend some people and lose some votes. 

It has become unacceptable in polite society to be racist or homophobic. We no longer entertain arguments in favor of these prejudices. In my view anti-abortionist views are well on their way to joining that duo and it can't happen soon enough. 

Women's reproductive rights are not up for debate. If some organization wants to preach that women are sinning and killing babies when they have an abortion then I don't want that organization recieving government money for any activities directly connected or not. If they argue that homosexuality is wrong I don't want them getting a cent of government money. 

If a religious group also wants to hold cherry festivals or run children's camps I think that is great. They should do it under a separate organizational banner from the one that has a core mandate opposing reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights. 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If a religious group also wants to hold cherry festivals or run children's camps I think that is great. They should do it under a separate organizational banner from the one that has a core mandate opposing reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.

Curiously:

Quote:
Correction: The Bruno Cherry Sunday Committee operates the festival, not St. Therese. It was the committee that cancelled Bruno Cherry Sunday this year because of the lack of summer student funding and insufficient volunteer availability. St. Therese works with the committee, applying for the summer student grant and providing both office space and their grounds for the event. This article has been updated.

So evidently, the Bruno Cherry Sunday Committee runs the show, but for some reason it's the St. Therese Institute of Faith and Mission that does the applying for summer job funding.

quizzical

committees can't apply for student wage subsidies.

they are not a business, nor have charitable or society status.

committees are formed from the core group to undertake a particular chore for the whole.

Pogo Pogo's picture

quizzical said it better

6079_Smith_W

Yes, it was the parish, though there was a strategy letter sent from the diocese, which was likely voluntary. This is different than in some diocese in Ontario and else where where they simply boycotted the process:

https://www.discoverhumboldt.com/local/uncertain-future-for-bruno-cherry...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
committees can't apply for student wage subsidies.

they are not a business, nor have charitable or society status.

committees are formed from the core group to undertake a particular chore for the whole.

Fair enough.  That may be the case here.  But if you search for corporations or charities in Canada on the term "committee" you get hundreds of results.  So the word "committee" does not, de facto, mean just a few people and a boardroom table.

I have to wonder if the people of Bruno would have had to do without their cherries if the festival had remained aligned with the Carleton Trail Agricultural Society. 

Perhaps they'd have been able to say -- without making Baby Jesus cry -- "no, we're not about fighting reproductive or LGBTQ rights, we're all about the cherries!"

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Curiously:

Quote:
Correction: The Bruno Cherry Sunday Committee operates the festival, not St. Therese. It was the committee that cancelled Bruno Cherry Sunday this year because of the lack of summer student funding and insufficient volunteer availability. St. Therese works with the committee, applying for the summer student grant and providing both office space and their grounds for the event. This article has been updated.

So evidently, the Bruno Cherry Sunday Committee runs the show, but for some reason it's the St. Therese Institute of Faith and Mission that does the applying for summer job funding.

And apparently the jobs grant wasn't the only problem. They couldn't find enough volunteers for a one day festival either. It seems the Cherry Festival is entirely dependent on hiring students for one day. 

Now, needy people will have no Cherry Festival to attend. 

Any other specifics on programs that have been canceled or reduced due to the lack of student workers?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So there is a committee but they have no volunteers? What were the committee members doing that weekend?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Any other specifics on programs that have been canceled or reduced due to the lack of student workers?

Please CC your answers to Bishop Mark Hagemoen.

Quote:
Catholic groups applying for funding to hire students this summer were also encouraged to add a letter explaining their reasons for not making the attestation.

The bishop also asked those applying for CSJ funding to contact the diocesan Office of Justice and Peace about their application details, such as: how many students they hoped to hire, how the particular project might contribute to the common good, and the impact on the organization if funding is denied.

Funny that the Bishop didn't just help them understand the wording.  I thought that was the real problem??

Martin N.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

the mens here, left and right, just seem to wanna say "watch out or we will strip you of your rights" "cause ....for whatever reason".

i still take it all as implied threats esp. when taken in tandem with the #metoo thread and the anti-woman taking a stand present there.

 

The first paragraph is entirely imagination. Any concern does not become a threat when NOBODY here is saying that they want this, can make it happen or would gain anything from it.

You have said this without justification a couple times. Can you explain exactly why when someone says that they are concerned about this you take it as them threatening this - or suggesting in any way they either can make this happen or want it to?

This seems to be an unjustified smear on the men here who actually seem to support the same ends you do.

Intolerance is ugly, no matter its direction. Religious intolerance based on perceived anti-abortion potential is still intolerance. The entities I mention not only have no anti-abortion agenda, they do not even mention it. They run kids camps period.

I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. If government were to direct its activities toward more funding for more choices rather than cutting funding to force choices, I'm good with that.

6079_Smith_W

Not sure how I missed this article, but it is illuminating:

Presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an anti-abortion organization applying for a grant to fund activities unrelated to abortion advocacy, nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of Canadians said they believe the organization should be eligible. Support for funding falls below 37 per cent in a scenario which sees the anti-abortion group spend its grant money on anti-abortion advocacy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/summer-jobs-grant-abortion-1.4661901

Not only are Canadians split 50/50 on the attestation, opposition cuts across party lines, with 68 percent of Constervatives opposing it, and 41 percent of Liberals and 44 percent of NDP.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Not sure how I missed this article, but it is illuminating:

Presented with a hypothetical scenario involving an anti-abortion organization applying for a grant to fund activities unrelated to abortion advocacy, nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of Canadians said they believe the organization should be eligible. Support for funding falls below 37 per cent in a scenario which sees the anti-abortion group spend its grant money on anti-abortion advocacy.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/summer-jobs-grant-abortion-1.4661901

Not only are Canadians split 50/50 on the attestation, opposition cuts across party lines, with 68 percent of Constervatives opposing it, and 41 percent of Liberals and 44 percent of NDP.

Did the pollster ask if organizations who refuse to hire gay students as camp counselors should be funded? 

What matters on an issue like this is how it will impact voters not what the percentages are. The grand majority that have an opinion on the topic won't vote based on it. They will vote based on economic management. 

​This was an easy way for Trudeau to telegraph his progressiveness and feminism. For people skimming the headlines he refused to fund organizations whose core mandate is opposed to LGBTQ rights and women's reproductive rights. For many that's all they need to know. 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Well it's obvious that we have still a long way to go before we condemn anti-women rights and LGBT rigths and Indigenous peoples rights and immigrant rights as a matter of fact and not an opinion subject to free speech and/or religious protections. In my view, any actions that restrict the rights of the aforementioned groups should be treated with the same contempt we would treat any organization or person who promotes slavery or genocide.

Pondering

Martin N. wrote:
Intolerance is ugly, no matter its direction. Religious intolerance based on perceived anti-abortion potential is still intolerance. The entities I mention not only have no anti-abortion agenda, they do not even mention it. They run kids camps period.

Nevertheless their core mandate includes opposing women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights by their own testimony. I find it difficult to believe they never ever mention it out loud, like in a Sunday service.

The children attending that camp presumably know the organization running the camp and think better of that organization because of it. May even be tempted to attend their church. For the government to give them money for any reason bestows credibility on that organization. 

No one is attempting to limit their rights. No one is picketing them or trying to shut them down. They do preach that homosexuality is sinful and abortion should be illegal. I'm pretty sure that they hope someday they will convince enough people to agree that they will succeed politicly. 

Opposing intolerance is not intolerant. 

6079_Smith_W

Wow.

Lots of grandstanding about this window dressing. Crickets about what I pointed out at #271.

I agree with you about one thing Pondering, this was easy. Easy target. Easy to get people whipped up. Easy to make up shit and move the goalposts around. Like if they are that evil why should we even let them get away with signing that paper - especially since this is the same as slavery and genocide.

But why is Trudeau doing this, and not pulling far greater federal funding from these same organizations when it comes to health and education? You said it. It is easy. At least in the short term.

And there are regulations about what you can and cannot ask job applicants. Aside from the fact that is an entirely different issue than job funding, what are you talking about?

Martin N.

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:
Intolerance is ugly, no matter its direction. Religious intolerance based on perceived anti-abortion potential is still intolerance. The entities I mention not only have no anti-abortion agenda, they do not even mention it. They run kids camps period.

Nevertheless their core mandate includes opposing women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights by their own testimony. I find it difficult to believe they never ever mention it out loud, like in a Sunday service.

The children attending that camp presumably know the organization running the camp and think better of that organization because of it. May even be tempted to attend their church. For the government to give them money for any reason bestows credibility on that organization. 

No one is attempting to limit their rights. No one is picketing them or trying to shut them down. They do preach that homosexuality is sinful and abortion should be illegal. I'm pretty sure that they hope someday they will convince enough people to agree that they will succeed politicly. 

Opposing intolerance is not intolerant. 

So, after I state they have no anti-abortion mandate or even mention abortion or same sex, for that matter, you blithely blather on about how their 'core mandate includes.......' It does not.

Intolerance is intolerance and wilful blindness to anything other than your own opinions does not equate to furthering progressive thought.

Demonising others to suit your agenda is intolerance and unacceptable in a progressive society.

Pages