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

488 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

"principles" i could give a rat's ass about those kinds of principles. and i question if they are even.

 

also u thi

 

 

also the anti-human rights groups in question aren't doing cheap politics? lmao

way lower than cheap imv.

Pogo Pogo's picture

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

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

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospitals are funded provincially and from you link:

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

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

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

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

 

Pondering

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

No, we just don't give them government money to hire impressionable students. 

They aren't being persecuted. Their non-profit status hasn't been threatened.

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

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

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  So no, it isn't just the province. And why it is relevant is that Trudeau claims he can't budge on that x, while he cuts cheques to organizations that really do undermine access to abortion in a far bigger way than the mailbox stuffers this was originally supposed to deal with. If he is all about the rights of women and LGBT people and access to reproductive services why is he silent on that front, and continuing to fund them? 

I think it's a  great idea if they have to sign a similar attestation. I think they should all be taken over by government. One is fully funded by government yet has a Catholic board. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 You might also want to read up on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses and Doukhobours. The government did actually refuse to recognize their status as a religion. And worse: https://historyofrights.ca/encyclopaedia/main-events/jehovahs-witnesses/

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

I don't see the connection to student job funding and you are ignoring the prejudice of the church that is being objected to. Prejudice is bad. See what happened to Muslims etc. We should not give money to churches that perpetuate prejudice. 

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  See the question I have when we stray into this line of rhetoric - perpetuating prejudice and comparisons with genocide - is that if that is the case how does checking off a box (fingers crossed behind your back or not) change that one bit?  

I agree it doesn't compare to genocide and genocide is bad. Checking off a box sents the message that only organizations that respect LBGTQ2 rights and reproductive rights for women are worthy of being subsidized to hire students for the summer. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 I get the feeling some are happy with this government policy not because they think it is balanced but because a half measure is better than nothing,   

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:
    and this dancing around the meaning of words and blaming the applicants is just a foil.

It is the applicants who are translating "core mandate" into beliefs and support of. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
It certainly seems so from the way religious people are being characterized. 

You are the one characterizing them. We say, "faith by it's very nature cannot be reasoned with". That does not mean religious people cannot be reasoned with in general. It means there is no argument I can make that will convince them there is no God or that the Bible doesn't say what they think it does. On other topics I'm sure they can argue with reason rather than with faith. 

Unless you are arguing faith has nothing to do with their beliefs on these topics?

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

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

Sorry if perhaps I am not explaining this correctly.

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

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

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

 

cco

Well, when I applied to immigrate to Canada, if memory serves, I had to check some boxes along the lines of certifying that I hadn't participated in the Holocaust or any other famous war crimes. If you apply for a firearms license in Canada, you have to check that you haven't been charged with gun crimes or recently gone through a divorce. Those checkboxes aren't there because the government thinks war criminals and perpetrators of domestic violence are slipping by, but would be honest enough to turn themselves in if asked. They exist for a fairly basic administrative reason: it shifts the onus in court. It's easier to prove somebody lied on a form (and therefore obtained citizenship/funding/a gun license fraudulently, a clear-cut and near-automatic reason for revoking it) than to go to court and go through the process of revoking something that was obtained legitimately because the government only found out about their background/core mandate/divorce after the fact.

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 If you think they cannot be reasoned with and that they promote prejudice then why the lip service to this declaration? Whether they sign it or not they still cannot be reasoned with, and they still promote prejudice, according to what you and others here say.  

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  It's just getting a bit tiring to dance between these two contradictory arguments - that they don't understand and all they have to do is sign, and on the other hand that they can't be reasoned with, can't be trusted, and promote prejudice. Maybe we should just pick one and deal with that.  

They promote prejudice. I don't know what you mean by "can't be trusted". I trust that they mean it when they claim the core mandate of their organization is contrary to respect for the rights of LBBTQ2 and reproductive rights for women.

Pondering

double post

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rather than getting all esoteric I think a simple pledge to not use funds to campaign against access to reproductive rights or LGBT rights might have been a bit simpler and caused a lot fewer headaches all around.

But that would change the requirement. It specifically states it applies both to the job and the organization. It may have been simplier but it would not have met the objective which is to exclude organizations that do not respect the rights of the LGBTQ2 community nor women's reproductive rights. 

It isn't a mistake. It's a feature. Hopefully the "clarification" won't be a backtrack. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

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

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

6079_Smith_W

Go back up the thread. There were all kinds of allegations being made about using the money for something else, and saying they are doing one thing, and actually doing another. And if you don't think they will listen to rational argument, how do you think they can honestly check that box? This really makes no sense in a lot of ways, but the end result is demonizing people some people who have acted in good faith and kept the peace on these issues.

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

and @ Pogo.

Exactly. And anyone who thinks that either doesn't want to see it, or hasn't bothered to look at what is happening at conferences and synods. I just mentioned the outcome of one in the U.S. and here in Saskatchewan.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  Go back up the thread. There were all kinds of allegations being made about using the money for something else, and saying they are doing one thing, and actually doing another.  

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  And if you don't think they will listen to rational argument, how do you think they can honestly check that box?  

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

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 This really makes no sense in a lot of ways, but the end result is demonizing people some people who have acted in good faith and kept the peace on these issues. 

They are being refused funding not being demonized. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
  This (among other negative things, including giving the actual anti-abortionists a free forum, and sympathy) is the end result of this supposedly progressive policy 

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

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

quizzical

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

the twists and turns to spew phoney shit.

6079_Smith_W

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

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

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

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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

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

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

That is fine. I do not have a problem with Canadians expressing that viewpoint. I don't agree with it. 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

quizzical wrote:

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

the twists and turns to spew phoney shit.

THIS
 

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

quizzical

Pogo wrote:

So we should make life as painful as possible for Christians in order to get them to abandon their beliefs? 

hmmm so us prohuman rights people are supposed to put up with their making our lives as miserable as possible in the hope they will grab a clue?

Doukabour beliefs have not been strenghtened imv nor are there more JW's.

nope no taxpayer money to support antihuman rights orgs. it's bad enough we all pay the taces on their buildings.

Pogo Pogo's picture

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

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

quizzical

in this time frame of soldified positions giving any tax payer monies to anti-human rights religions is not going to change any mind set. in fact giving them money could actually reenforce their belief they are doing good works.

we do not have to be tolerant of intolerance to try and change any mindset.

the flat earthers and their whole basket full of conspiracy theories are growing. should they get tax payers money too?

they believe the people who do not believe in a flat earth are agents of the devil. 

how far do we want to go down the rabbit hole insanity of some religions?

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Wow.  There is no point discussing this further.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

in this time frame of soldified positions giving any tax payer monies to anti-human rights religions is not going to change any mind set. in fact giving them money could actually reenforce their belief they are doing good works.

we do not have to be tolerant of intolerance to try and change any mindset.

the flat earthers and their whole basket full of conspiracy theories are growing. should they get tax payers money too?

they believe the people who do not believe in a flat earth are agents of the devil. 

how far do we want to go down the rabbit hole insanity of some religions?

 

This is an illustration as to why this is a bit more complicated -- It is not a for or against simple question about the policy. I am with Quizzical on the idea that no public money should go to these organizations. I do not like this jobs policy becuase I would prefer it to be clean, clear and without loopholes. Instead it is political and designed to placate those who are against by not doing much and placate those who want some progress by pretending to do something.

I woudl love to see a real national discussion abotu why religious organizations are sheltered at all. If they want to do charitable works then they can set that up but the whole religion is not a charity.

When it comes to the charitable works they should be cut off if they are arguing against standards codified in law as rights -- I don't care if these are rights listed in the constitution or established through interpretation of the consitution (as interesting as that difference is when it comes to long term protection of rights, there is no difference when it comes to this).

All funding for charity ought to go to benefit of people without conflicts from those with other agendas. No funding should go to attack any right -- not just gendera but all the other protected rights in the constitution. No funding should exist for religion.

I want that conversation.

In the meantime, I would like any half measures to be put out with clarity not weasil words that the government gets to deny or proclaim depending on the audience.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

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

NorthReport

I’m sure if Trudeau just calls his Washington buddy everything will be fine just like NAFTA and other tariffs

Oops I forget, please Justin don’t!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

Does Jesus endorse either of those?

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

quizzical

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

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

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

nope nothing rational about the fundamentalist christians.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

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

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

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

nope nothing rational about the fundamentalist christians.

 

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

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

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

So there is a huge distinction between

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

and 2) Trying to get those rights laws changed.

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

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

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

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

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

quizzical

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

 

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

Does Jesus endorse either of those?

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

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

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

dad comes into play when they wannabe bigoted.

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

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

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

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Thanks, quizzical.

I was always amazed with the number of evangelical groups that received all sorts of project and program funding under Harper's government. They were also very quick to cut funding from more progressive groups such as KAIROS who did amazing work on international projects. The then CIDA mandate changes from gender rights to maternal care in developing countries, excluding funding for resproductive rights and education. And there was also the abomination of how they gutted the Status of Women office and cancelled operational funding for such amazing groups a LEAF (Women's Legal Education and Action Fun).

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

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

Does Jesus endorse either of those?

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

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

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

dad comes into play when they wannabe bigoted.

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

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

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

I have often felt that biblical justification is code for saying that something cannot be justified otherwise and the people prosing it do not want to be questionned. In other words anything that I hear is justified by religion, I want to question it more than ever.

Religion is the omnibus bills of ancient times-- the package you are supposed to swallow without question -- entirely.

Your last sentence is interesting as well -- the history of the Christian religion is about removing women. You can read how the religion was practices at home led to a great degree by women and that they moved it from home to a church in order to create barriers to any power for women. I think it is clear that the church as a core part of its being and mandate is hostile to gender equality.

6079_Smith_W

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

6079_Smith_W

And you also realize this cull includes many groups and people who themselves suffer discrimination, are disadvantaged and who, in another reckoning are the ones we pledge to support. Or does that (along with recognizing those rights) also depend on whether they think the way we Do?

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

cco

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

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

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

quizzical

6079_Smith_W wrote:
And you also realize this cull includes many groups and people who themselves suffer discrimination, are disadvantaged and who, in another reckoning are the ones we pledge to support. Or does that (along with recognizing those rights) also depend on whether they think the way we Do? To back up a bit, let's remember this isn't about a special religious privilege, it is about cutting groups off from funding that is available to virtually any organization, including business.

"cull"?

nice triggering false word use. 

you speak of groups who suffer discrimination or who are disadvantaged who "we" pledged to support?

who are these not mentioned by name groups? who is the "we"?

do you even know how and who does the choosing of what org or business gets funding once the boxes are checked?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

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

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

the Government wrote:

  • Example 2: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs applies for funding to hire students to serve meals to the homeless. The organization provides numerous programs in support of their community.  The students would be responsible for meal planning, buying groceries, serving meals, etc.  This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 3: A faith-based organization that embraces a traditional definition of marriage but whose primary activities reduce social isolation among seniors applies for funding to hire students. The students would be responsible for developing and delivering programs to all seniors, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression. ‎ This organization would be eligible to apply. 
  • Example 5: A faith-based organization with anti-abortion beliefs that operates a summer camp for disadvantaged youth applies for funding to hire students as camp counselors. The students would be responsible for developing programs for the youth, including leadership and skills development. This organization would be eligible to apply.

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, that's what I said Magoo. This isn't about religion. There are businesses and organizations which have also been refused because they would not check that box.

Funny though that it has become a foil for some who wants to see religion wiped from the earth, or who thinks religious people will never listen to reason. Another result of Trudeau's stunt. As much as he claims religious organizations are welcome, accusing those who have honest concerns of acting in bad faith makes that kind of a hollow offer.

And I should have thought it was clear what I was saying cco. 

This is a cutting off of support - one that is a lot bigger than I expect some here appreciate. I am asking if it is such a point of principle that you support doing it to people and groups that are not working against LGBT rights or access to abortion, where is your line?

After all, there are already concerns the government may extend this pledge to other areas. And contrary to the picture that this is primarily white Evangelicals and Catholics. there are plenty of people in communities which are disadvantaged and suffer discrimination - including Indigenous, immigrant, and people in poverty - who have the same values about women, about abortion and about LGBT issues. Some of the projects cancelled were intended to serve those communities.

I don't expect many people here agreed with Kellie Leitch proposing that people be asked similar values questions as a condition of immigrant status.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/leitch-immigrants-canadian-values-1.401...

If it is an outrage when it is a paternalistic discriminatory dog whistle from one politician, why it is perfectly acceptible coming from another? I think the big difference is the assumption about who it will affect, even though both affect some of the same people.

And if you don't recognize that it is a dogwhistle, why the pile-on against religion and religious people - the claims they act in bad faith, will use any opportunity to discriminate, won't listen to reason, and will never be satisfied and looking for any excuse to complain?

I am also curious, of you think it is okay to cut communities off from federal funding because of their values, and essentially brand them as untrustworthy and unCanadian do you imagine those values will automatically change, or these people will just disappear? Again, in case you are wondering what I mean by cull (gee, you'd think I said genocide) there's this assumption that other people will just appear and take over. How do you imagine that is going to happen in a small community where most people have those values?

quizzical

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

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

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

6079_Smith_W

So how is this any different than Kellie Leitch going after people with those values?

Other than the fact Justin Trudeau actually did it, that is.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

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

Yes, exactly.

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

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

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

Both the action and the reaction is mostly false.

6079_Smith_W

It isn't about churches and their tax status Sean - a status which many would have anyway as non-profit organizations.

Campaign Life Coalition is not a church. Nor is the Centre for BioEthical reform. Nor are the other lobby groups and fake pregnancy help orgs identified by the Abortion Rights Coalition.

As for church property taxes, that is provincial and municipal, and many are moving on it. One example: 

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

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

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

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

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6079_Smith_W

You mean in the case of that restaurant? Businesses are eligible, Sean.

Again (and I may have cross edited it) the groups identified by Abortion Rights Coalition were not churches. They were lobby groups and fake pregnancy clinics. Yet that is the dogwhistle everyone is hearing.

quizzical

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

 

Pages