I find it a bit amusing that religions, who killed people because of their beliefs, and to this day still condemn and disallow 'heresy' (remember Trinity Western and their 'oath') are suddenly up in arms because they have to respect the law.
I'm with cco on this. And perhaps it's time to examine the whole tax-free status of religions.
Should every group receiving support from the Government have to pass a litmus test for their views?
Also curious what is the range of jobs. Are they all camp counsellors which seems like the low hanging fruit for those looking to attack the program. I don't know. But I would assume some churches would be using them for social outreach. The Menonites have a massive housing program for example. Others run soup kitchens. Is it legit to ask every organization receiving support from the government to disavow views that they have a legal right to hold. If it is wrong for Harper to ban Kairos from accessing government money for having views contrary to the government of the day, why is it right to do the same in reverse.
Would you rather that the local Chamber of Commerce used the money for somebody to work on one of their questionable programs. Or should all government money be given to groups that think and talk like we (who are we?) want them to.
Josh, it's not a slippery slope since that's how it's always been conducted. Charities already have a 10% limit on their political activities in order to retain charitable status. The Canadian Arab Federation lost funding due to controversial comments. The court ruled that their freedom of speech was not violated. Withdrawal of funding does not constitute violation of freedom of speech. Funding is completely optional, at the discretion of the government.
Legally, it’s different in the U.S., at least if the funding is open to all, and there’s no church/state problem. But even that has been eroded. I just believe that viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to action, as a condition of government funding is wrong. Being forced to agree with something you object to, as opposed to agreeing not to discriminate based on that disagreement.
you people ever been to a bible camp? they're all about preaching to kids plus doing fun stuff. Josh our tax dollars should not be funding students to indoctrinate kids. maybe we should be funding residential schools then too? am pretty offended that some here are advocating they should get to access tax dollars to promote their agenda. i guess it's ok with the mens like you josh as it only effects women's rights and lives.
Yes, that's it.
I find it a bit amusing that religions, who killed people because of their beliefs, and to this day still condemn and disallow 'heresy' (remember Trinity Western and their 'oath') are suddenly up in arms because they have to respect the law.
I'm with cco on this. And perhaps it's time to examine the whole tax-free status of religions.
I've said for years that if churches and religious groups want to be involved in politics,they should have to pay their admission.
Tax them. No more exemptions. No more funding.You're obliged to follow the laws of the land. OR you can shut the fuck up and get the hell out of politics.
CBC website this morning has an item labelled "NDP's Nathan Cullen adds his voice to those condemning Trudeau government's summer job abortion stance."
Is this really the stance of the NDP?
By the way, where's Jagmeet Singh these days?
If a conservative government tried to require a group to pledge to support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as a condition of funding, most of you would be screaming.
This is an example of how you are mixing up political positions with legal rights. No foreign state has any legal right to be recognized by Canada. And in addition recognition "as a Jewish state" is simply a political position with no legal import.
The rights of Canadians are not political positions. They belong to Canadians, not any government or party.
I heard reports of church groups not checking that box and sending it in anyway to see what happens. Of course it doesn't help that not getting the grant isn't proof of anything. Or that it has already been established that grant funding isn't a right.
Even so, I think a better wording might have helped, just to make it clear this isn't about policing thought. It isn't - or shouldn't - be about core values, but rather about activities.
Fact is, institutions run by anti-choice organizations - schools and hospitals - do get federal funding, and will continue to. The real issue should be making sure none of this grant funding goes toward activities that directly relate to that.
Because it doesn't matter whether it is legal or not. It does matter whether enough people are going to think this is a religious freedom, and a freedom of conscience issue that it overshadows what the government is trying to do.
And this doesn't just relate to abortion, though that is where all the focus is. Technically this also relates to gender identity rights, though I doubt many are thinking about that.
Not if they classify engaging in a boycott of Israel anti-Semitism. Racial/religious discrimination. As has taken place in he U.S.
http://time.com/4992101/hurricane-harvey-texas-dickinson-israel/
I would love the government NOT to recognize Israel as a ' Jewish State' And recognize the indigenous people of that land which are the Palestinians. Arabs are semitic so not recognizing Palestine is technically anti-semitism as well.
I'd like our govermnment to demand the 1967 borders back. Personally,I'd like to see the 1947 borders back and if the Knesset defies these borders,no more foreign aid and immdediate sanctions.
Starve them into submission,establish a Palestine army fully funded by the international community (sell them arms including nukes) and put the shoe on the other foot for a few decades.
See how fast B'nai Brith beg for a 2 state solution. Heads would spin.
Netanyahoo can go find a job at the local Tel Aviv Walmart. Or better yet,arrested and tried for crimes against humanity which comes with a fate exactly as Saddam Husein's ultimate punishment.
The anti human rights crowd in AB are pushing for students to go to work in UCP offices this summer to push antiabortion rhetoric.
Do polical parties have access to summer student funding?
Nathan Cullen on this today:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nathan-cullen-summer-job-abortion-1.4502634
"If somebody is doing something that goes against the [charter], it's what we have a charter for, it's what we have courts for, it's what we have police for," said NDP MP Nathan Cullen on the fringes of his party's caucus meeting in Ottawa Wednesday.
"I think it's offensive to some Canadians because it's saying: 'if you hold these values, you are not worthy of any government funding even if the work that you're doing supports the charter, supports the general values that Canadians hold.'
And Macleans on the legal issues and risk to the Liberals:
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-should-read-the-ch...
I think the Liberals have chosen to provoke evangelical groups by presenting them with a document they will find hard to sign, likely because they benefit from this kind of public debate, which helps remind Canadian women that the party running the government wants to protect abortion rights. ...
The government could easily change the document to respond to the concerns of religious groups, narrowing the language to make certain that the summer students don’t spend their time handing out anti-abortion pamphlets, but they are instead choosing to play politics with summer camp funding.
They are taking a stupid risk, though, because if they don’t give way, they can be sued for violating the Charter right to freedom of religion. Canadian courts have often pushed back at attempts to infringe on that right, in cases involving niqabs and kirpans, for instance. Jason Kenney looked stupid, for example, when the courts blocked his ban on niqabs at citizenship ceremonies."
I'm with Josh on this one. Not a big fan of Nathan's references to common Canadian values in the excerpt above, I would rather he acknowledged people have different values, but I agree with his general point and I am surprised he said it.
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/services/funding/...
1. Overview
Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) is an initiative of the Summer Work Experience program. It provides wage subsidies to employers to create employment for secondary and post-secondary students. Again this year, Canada Summer Jobs welcomes applications from small businesses, not-for-profit employers, public sector and faith-based organizations that provide quality summer jobs for students.
CSJ provides funding to not-for-profit organizations, public-sector employers and small businesses with 50 or fewer full-time employees to create summer job opportunities for young people aged 15 to 30 years who are full-time students intending to return to their studies in the next school year.
By way of five national priorities, CSJ 2018 supports the following:
The Government of Canada is committed to offering valuable summer work opportunities for students and to support communities in taking action on local priorities. These summer work experiences represent important pathways facilitating future transitions from school to the world of work.
CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
The employer attestation for CSJ 2018 is consistent with individual human rights in Canada, Charter rights and case law, and the Government of Canada’s commitment to human rights, which include women’s rights and women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of gender-diverse and transgender Canadians.
Looks good to me.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cullen-ndp-abortion-summer-grant-1.4503547
New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen has apologized for criticizing the Trudeau government's decision to force groups applying for summer-job grants to affirm their respect for a woman's right to have an abortion....
Cullen initially called the new requirement "offensive" during a news conference on Wednesday, and compared it to the Harper government's decision to cut funding for foreign aid groups that supported abortion.
But he took to Twitter a few hours later to say he was sorry "for the harm from my comments," and asserted that he and the federal NDP are "fiercely pro-choice."
"I reacted to concerns raised by groups in my riding on the government's first statement on the policy," Cullen wrote.
A subsequent clarification earlier this week from the department responsible for the program "put those fears to rest," he added.
As posted above:
"I reacted to concerns raised by groups in my riding on the government's first statement on the policy," Cullen wrote.
That's about as feeble as it gets. This is the party that's going to stand firm on human rights?
A subsequent clarification earlier this week from the department responsible for the program "put those fears to rest," he added.
So those groups that "raised concerns" literally phoned him and said "Never mind, walk it back. Walk it back. We're no longer concerned!"?
I wonder if those groups are NDP voters or some other party?
I would say in any church there is a range of NDP voters.
CBC: Jagmeet Singh affirms NDP's support for reproductive rights after MP Nathan Cullen's misstep
"There is no confusion when it comes to reproductive rights — all New Democrats fully and completely support reproductive rights," Singh told reporters in Ottawa. "In fact, I don't believe we should support any organization whose agenda it is to in any way infringe on reproductive rights."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cullen-ndp-abortion-summer-grant-1.4503547
I would say in any church there is a range of NDP voters.
Well, maybe in the United Church.
But fundamentalist/evangelicals aren't likely to support any party that supports equal marriage, "gay rights", reproductive choice or transpeople.
Should every group receiving support from the Government have to pass a litmus test for their views?
Should absolutely EVERY group that knocks on the door get government funding? How about a Nazi all-Aryan camp? Who are we to judge them and litmus test them?
This isn't about the groups' opinions, it's about their primary actitivities. Big difference. One may follow the other, but not always.
Yes, the government should screen out its contractors, as always. Their views are irrelevant, but their activities and practices matter.
Should every group receiving support from the Government have to pass a litmus test for their views?
Sure. If you run a weekend soccer camp, or you run a food bank, or even, to use your example, a soup kitchen, then probably your core mandate isn't to undo equal marriage, so it should be a total cakewalk. Like putting a box, and beside it, "Check off this box if you agree with slavery".
This net isn't going to accidentally trap anyone who just wants to do good.
When I was chair of our local poverty activist group, religous organizations formed a large component of our group. Included were a number of churches that surprised me. I was actually surprised by the progressive nature of churches I had previously written off as people I would cross the street to avoid. So I don't think it is easy to look at a form and say this group has a view on one or more social issue that is 'wrong' therefore they are incapable of doing positive things. Moreover often the dictates of the Church parent body are collapsing on the ground and these boxes only reflect a paper expression of the policy and not what is happening on ground.
As posted by SocialJustice101:
"There is no confusion when it comes to reproductive rights — all New Democrats fully and completely support reproductive rights," Singh told reporters in Ottawa. "In fact, I don't believe we should support any organization whose agenda it is to in any way infringe on reproductive rights."
Well, it took a bit of time for this statement to be made, but I'll give him this. It is the correct statement, clear and unequivocal.
This did cause Cullen some embarassment, but it should have. Perhaps next time he'll put his brain in gear before he opens his mouth.
On the subject of fundamentalists - maybe in the strictes sense, no. But remember Joe Borowski?
From Pogo:
Moreover often the dictates of the Church parent body are collapsing on the ground and these boxes only reflect a paper expression of the policy and not what is happening on ground.
But the money isn't going to individuals, it's going to organizations. I'm sure there are religious folk who follow the creed of being 'my brothers keeper'. It reminds me a bit of a couple of old time Communists I knew. One in particular was the most reliable person you could meet, but even while Staliin was destroying the party, he remained a member, working to his own set of principles.
Individual Christians, say, may be nice people, with good principles. That doesn't stop the churches they belong to from being backward, misogynist, hidebound, cruel, vindictive organizations, responsible for some of the worst crimes this world has seen.
I didn't, but Google does.
Sounds like Borowski was not unlike the vegan who eats bacon.
So I don't think it is easy to look at a form and say this group has a view on one or more social issue that is 'wrong' therefore they are incapable of doing positive things.
Nobody is saying they can't do positive things (even if they shift that net gain by making negative things part of their core mandate). But if some group's reason for being -- their CORE MANDATE -- proclaims their intent to walk back progressive rights, why should we fund them?
If some church feeds the needy, should we give them money to feed the needy so that they can use their other money to picket family planning clinics?
Or are you talking about church groups you worked with who used their funds to help women secure safe abortions? If so, I think we'd all like to hear more about that.
But the money isn't going to individuals, it's going to organizations. I'm sure there are religious folk who follow the creed of being 'my brothers keeper'.
I can think of many examples of individuals who had the power to impliment programs of change. While the Anglican Church was going through deep divisions on sexual orientation and doing their best to avoid resolving their residential school sins the Richmond Church took a leadership role in providing a cold weather homeless shelter. The Catholic Church which probably has trouble ticking many of the boxes created a range of new programs to help new immigrants and actively supported an internal committee that was an activst leader in the community. I can think easily of a half dozen churches not just having good hearted people, but actively supporting programs organizationally.
This step by the Liberals was a big FU to a lot of people doing progressive work as part of seriously blemished organizations. Will we have a leg to stand on when they do the same thing to organizations that support boycotting Israel (well now they are attacking our side and that makes it different!).
As an atheist I am don't have a horse in this race but it just seems the wrong way to approach the issue.
This step by the Liberals was a big FU to a lot of people doing progressive work as part of seriously blemished organizations.
Could that progressive work include them ticking the box? Agreeing with Canada about rights?
If not, why not? And if not, why do they deserve everyone else's money for the good things, so the rest of the money can go to all the things that they're not allowed to argue with?
As an atheist I am don't have a horse in this race but it just seems the wrong way to approach the issue.
Indirectly funding things you say you disagree with is the right way? Could you unpack that??
If some church feeds the needy, should we give them money to feed the needy so that they can use their other money to picket family planning clinics?
Are you saying that if we refuse to help the Catholic church with their Syrian immigrant support program that instead that they will take away money used to distribute some Bishop diatribe on reproductive rights to put into this program? Because I highly doubt that.
I think we should understand that just like the world is made up of a bunch of conflicted individuals, likewise organizations will not fall conveniently into good and bad but will have a range of values that meets progressive criteria in some areas and fails in others. Once we apply one test it will become a slippery slope to add other tests.
From Pogo:
Will we have a leg to stand on when they do the same thing to organizations that support boycotting Israel (well now they are attacking our side and that makes it different!).
Which current BDS organizations are getting government funding? Given that BDS is overtly political, it would seem that those organizations would already be excluded from funding.
As an atheist I am don't have a horse in this race but it just seems the wrong way to approach the issue.Indirectly funding things you say you disagree with is the right way? Could you unpack that??
Letting go for the moment the highly problematic argument that government shouldn't fund groups that do not represent the broad consensus of the population.
I believe that once you try and impose controls across the board you are going to end up with less. I volunteered for years with people from across the religious spectrum. Not just lay persons, church leaders both spiritually and within the administrations. Anti-abortion is supposedly a core principle of many of these groups, but I can say that during my time it came up only once and it was from a baptist church member. It actually came to me as a bit of a surprise as she was a staunch fighter for progressive issues in general (one of those people who demand action and don't accept excuses). After a meeting of homeless action group she mentioned that she was prolife, but that she didn't make a big point of discussing it. Otherwise it never never came up.
Given the high profile of abortion activism I can see how people assume that any religious group that comes down on that side of the issue is scary, but it is not the case. Maybe in the churches that divide the congregation by sex or spend meetings speeking in tongues, but in my interactions most of the people - including people in local authority positions - would rather run and hide from the issue. That is probably what is what is most distressing about this policy - that it takes a view that is dying a slow death (that may take a few generations) and makes people decide whether they want to wear it on their sleeve or not.
Is this okay? Do the groups making the decison consider it political or a human rights decision? Wasn't this what excluded Kairos from funding? Hasn't the United Church debated it.From Pogo:
Will we have a leg to stand on when they do the same thing to organizations that support boycotting Israel (well now they are attacking our side and that makes it different!).
Which current BDS organizations are getting government funding? Given that BDS is overtly political, it would seem that those organizations would already be excluded from funding.
If some church feeds the needy, should we give them money to feed the needy so that they can use their other money to picket family planning clinics?Are you saying that if we refuse to help the Catholic church with their Syrian immigrant support program that instead that they will take away money used to distribute some Bishop diatribe on reproductive rights to put into this program? Because I highly doubt that.
I think we should understand that just like the world is made up of a bunch of conflicted individuals, likewise organizations will not fall conveniently into good and bad but will have a range of values that meets progressive criteria in some areas and fails in others. Once we apply one test it will become a slippery slope to add other tests.
oh really...with those parameters we can say the residential school abuses weren't so bad because afterall they were progressive on some fronts they educated the children and some hearts were the right place.
It was a few years ago, but the American Catholic Bishops did a funding purge of all the groups they supported which had even a tangential connection to reproductive health. This meant that farm credit organizations, community associations, - all kinds of secular groups lost their church funding. It was one of the things that Frances worked to change when he became pope.
oh really...with those parameters we can say the residential school abuses weren't so bad because afterall they were progressive on some fronts they educated the children and some hearts were the right place.If some church feeds the needy, should we give them money to feed the needy so that they can use their other money to picket family planning clinics?Are you saying that if we refuse to help the Catholic church with their Syrian immigrant support program that instead that they will take away money used to distribute some Bishop diatribe on reproductive rights to put into this program? Because I highly doubt that.
I think we should understand that just like the world is made up of a bunch of conflicted individuals, likewise organizations will not fall conveniently into good and bad but will have a range of values that meets progressive criteria in some areas and fails in others. Once we apply one test it will become a slippery slope to add other tests.
Funny but it exactly the opposite view that I was trying to get across. I don't really care if their heart was in the right place, but rather in the end did they make the world a better place. Residential schools are a horrible black mark in Canadian history (my brother-in-law attended one) there is no way to find silver linings. The work of the Anglican Church in Richmond to provide shelter for homeless did not somehow absolve them of their residential school guilt. They have to own that and their work for a few years on homeless issues pales in comparison. Still the work on homelessness was still a benefit to the community and I admire the people who committed hours to make it work.
That is probably what is what is most distressing about this policy - that it takes a view that is dying a slow death (that may take a few generations) and makes people decide whether they want to wear it on their sleeve or not.
Ahh, yes, the old "Why do we need to ram civil rights down people's throats? Society's moving so fast that everyone who doesn't want them will be dead within a century." argument. I would hope it's as self-evident for abortion rights as it is for racial and gender equality why society shouldn't be constrained by the evolutionary speed of its most reactionary elders (an argument I heard a lot when I first came to babble around the time of the same-sex marriage debate), but apparently a lot of people still think we just need to give Jesus some time to get used to things.
This issue is NOT just about abortion. It's also about a huge waste of money. According to Global News, the anti-choice groups got $3.5 Million over the last 5 years. The money would be much better spent elsewhere.
you see pogo there's a difference in they're volunteering to make a difference or using our money to make a difference and as an off shoot make themselves appear like they're doing God's work and suck people in.
Our tax dollars are paying for it
I dont mind paying just not tangled up in churchianity.
you see pogo there's a difference in they're volunteering to make a difference or using our money to make a difference and as an off shoot make themselves appear like they're doing God's work and suck people in.
Our tax dollars are paying for it
I dont mind paying just not tangled up in churchianity.
you see pogo there's a difference in they're volunteering to make a difference or using our money to make a difference and as an off shoot make themselves appear like they're doing God's work and suck people in.
Our tax dollars are paying for it
I dont mind paying just not tangled up in churchianity.
you see pogo there's a difference in they're volunteering to make a difference or using our money to make a difference and as an off shoot make themselves appear like they're doing God's work and suck people in.
Our tax dollars are paying for it
I dont mind paying just not tangled up in churchianity.
you see pogo there's a difference in they're volunteering to make a difference or using our money to make a difference and as an off shoot make themselves appear like they're doing God's work and suck people in.
Our tax dollars are paying for it
I dont mind paying just not tangled up in churchianity.
There was government money for the cold weather shelter, there was people sleeping out in the cold. The problem was that nobody with a space was stepping up. The Anglican Church stepped up. And according to the consensus here it was better to leave the homeless out in the cold than to have government money involved with this group.
There was government money for the cold weather shelter, there was people sleeping out in the cold. The problem was that nobody with a space was stepping up. The Anglican Church stepped up. And according to the consensus here it was better to leave the homeless out in the cold than to have government money involved with this group.
Not if you actually read what we're saying. Is the Anglican Church primarily focused on anti-abortion activism? If not, then they are eligible for program. Read the program details posted above by Pondering.
Or, perhaps, it'd be better to have the government directly spend money to house the homeless (a substantial proportion of whom are First Nations) rather than subsidizing one of the churches that raped and tortured them in residential schools. At some point it might be time to stop asking the people who caused the problem how much public money they'll take to fix it. Just a thought.
Well there is a range of things being said by a number of people. But on topic, of course any organization should be eligible for program funding so long as they don't work against human rights principles.
Thing is, if the application form is all that clear, then why are some staunch choice supporters also questioning its fairness? Personally I give the government the benefit of the doubt, but given that it doesn't read like they are asking about what the group intends to do with the job, and instead asks them what their values are, I can see why some might object.
And why the government might want to clear up exactly what they are asking for. If only for the sake of those who DO support this action, but don't like the idea of a purity test.
http://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/paula-simons-summer-job-id...
And that's another reason why Cullen should probably have thought about his words. Aside from not getting the whole picture and recognizing good thing the Liberals were trying to do (if in a ham-handed way), it also just seems opportunistic.
And cross posted cco. I agree in principle, though it is kind of like other anti-charity arguments. In fact, it is kind of the ultimate one when one considers the work that no one else wants to do, and therefore falls to church volunteers (and other groups involved in similar work). It isn't just a case of government taking up the slack. If you really want to make those churches irrelevant, then get out there and start organizations to replace them.
Though really, one would think the real point is helping people, not being concerned about churches cornering the misery market.
I had used the Anglican Church as an example as the argument had evolved to include a variety of sins including Residential schools. But okay so lets slide over to the Catholic church. I cannot identify from memory the exact program but for the sake of argument lets say it was something of equal community benefit. Help provided for people desperate for help who are not getting it elsewhere. Provided by church officials and community with no connection to abortion rights. Indeed I would hazard a guess that the sister who I worked with had pro-choice leanings (we never discussed it). Should we remove the funding and let the programs collapse?
yep.
plenty of orgs out there to step up if they can access funding. when churches have it locked government wont duplicate services.
And meanwhile while you are talking about the perfect choice, people sleep in the cold.Or, perhaps, it'd be better to have the government directly spend money to house the homeless (a substantial proportion of whom are First Nations) rather than subsidizing one of the churches that raped and tortured them in residential schools. At some point it might be time to stop asking the people who caused the problem how much public money they'll take to fix it. Just a thought.
