March 23, 2018

Summer jobs program: Liberals penalize people of faith for breaking law that doesn’t exist

David MenziesMission Specialist

 

The Liberals have politicized the summer job, and as a result are penalizing charitable groups that subscribe to a different value-set.

So much for "diversity is our strength."

A recent National Post story reveals that after being defunded for refusing to agree with the Liberals’ “core mandate” values, millions have been forfeited due to exclusion from the Canada Summer Jobs Program.

The Liberals effectively changed the rules of the game in the bottom of the 9th inning with their over-the-top virtue signalling set out in the eligibility requirements:

To be eligible [for a grant], the core mandate of the organization must 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 most contentious issue is the proviso on reproductive rights which, simply put, means all hiring organizations must pledge that they’re pro-choice, but this bully pulpit position simply makes no sense. Isn’t such an edict unconstitutional to begin with?

A government that administers any kind of grant program is fully within its rights to expect recipients to follow the law of the land, but Canada has no law on abortion.

If the Liberals are so pro-choice and care so deeply about this issue, then why not do the right thing and address this contentious issue by drafting an abortion law in Parliament?

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2018-03-30 22:57:00 -0400
Give us liberty or give us death. We don’t want your values test.
commented 2018-03-26 18:51:01 -0400
David:

I truly appreciate your coverage of this story, but you made reference to an “anti-abortion” group.
It is NOT anti-abortion, it is PRO-LIFE group.
Please, the MSM have redefined pro-life groups and people to be known as anti-abortion groups and people.
Please, use PRO-LIFE, not anti-abortion when referring to pro-life supporters and discussing this subject.
Thanks.
commented 2018-03-26 10:39:14 -0400
There is a rigid set of criteria applied to the proper interpretation of any biblical text; original cultural context, historical context, the author’s original literary type and structure, author’s writing style, author’s original intent, situational context, interpreting it from the original language, and the list goes "

This is an interesting comment. I would hazard to say, that if something is openly and directly stated, then that’s probably the “correct” interpretation, especially if the concepts being expressed are simple and bore cultural relevance both then and now.

Are you trying to use cultural interpretations to introduce relativism to the Bible? It’s an interesting concept, given the propsensity towards an absolutist interpretation.

It literally says, in Exodus, that the punishment for taking life is life (an eye for an eye etc). Yet, in the passage immediately preceeding, says the penalty for causing a pregnant woman to "lose her fruit’ is a fine, at behest of husband and judge. This is direct confirmation that, notwithstanding “knowing you before you were conceived” (paraphrased, obviously), it’s not considered murder to ’lose your fruit".

“Andrew said, “The entire argument revolves around non-universality of payment.”

No, the issue is that the Liberals changed the conditions of successful application to the summer jobs program using criteria that requires people to agree with their Liberal ideology. That is the real issue. Please stop your intentional obfuscation of the issue. "

Tomato, tomahto.. You can wave your hands all you like – introducing conditions removes non-universality.

“Al Peterson commented 1 day ago
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 5 hours ago

A politician’s answer. Abortion isn’t a core Christian tenet – different sects have different opinions and the interpretation of the Biblical texts vary.
________________________________________________________________________________
What you know about the Bible could be put in a thimble with lots of room left over. "

The same is true of a lot of Evangelicals, judging their behaviour. The entire religious is based upon an artificial them-vs-us division with religious groups being victimized by some bigger outgroup – abortion’s a great wedge issue for that, since it’s not one they will win and they know it. A hundred years from now they’ll still be fighting it. The victim narrative is evident even here. Trudeau hates Christians! Oh no.
commented 2018-03-25 16:00:00 -0400
PETER NETTERVILLE

Andrew asked, “Didn’t you just argue that universality was a non-sequitur?”

No, I said your answer was a non-sequitur.
________________________________________________________________________________
Peter, answering all the intentional obfuscations, lies and illogical ramblings of Andrew is a full time job. Andrew can pack more BS into a post than can be straightened out in a week.
commented 2018-03-25 09:29:09 -0400
The Liberals are weaponizing the government against the people. People across the political spectrum need to be concerned about this. Trudeau loves “basic dictatorships” and acts as though he’s running one.
commented 2018-03-25 07:58:28 -0400
Andrew said, "It’s also the only one being made here, and the only one that has even a faint hope of succeeding as a constitutional challenge.

Religion may be the only basis for objection here on this site, but religious groups are not the only ones to object. As far as constitutionally, you are wrong. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are also a valid basis for objection.

Andrew said, “A politician’s answer. Abortion isn’t a core Christian tenet – different sects have different opinions and the interpretation of the Biblical texts vary.”

There is only one valid interpretation of any biblical text. There are, however, many applications of that interpretation. That is what many people like you mix up. The original author’s meaning is the only valid interpretation.

There is a rigid set of criteria applied to the proper interpretation of any biblical text; original cultural context, historical context, the author’s original literary type and structure, author’s writing style, author’s original intent, situational context, interpreting it from the original language, and the list goes on.

Proper interpretation of the Bible is not a matter of just reading it and whatever you feel about it is then the truth of the text. What a person feels about it and how it applies to him/her may be a valid application of that text.

So no, my answer was not a politicians answer.

Andrew said, “The entire argument revolves around non-universality of payment.”

No, the issue is that the Liberals changed the conditions of successful application to the summer jobs program using criteria that requires people to agree with their Liberal ideology. That is the real issue. Please stop your intentional obfuscation of the issue.

Andrew asked, “Didn’t you just argue that universality was a non-sequitur?”

No, I said your answer was a non-sequitur.
commented 2018-03-25 00:25:38 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 5 hours ago

A politician’s answer. Abortion isn’t a core Christian tenet – different sects have different opinions and the interpretation of the Biblical texts vary.
________________________________________________________________________________
What you know about the Bible could be put in a thimble with lots of room left over.
commented 2018-03-25 00:18:28 -0400
Andrew being prosecuted by the HRC is threatening and they have nothing to keep them in check. Going to jail for criticizing Islam under m-103 is a threat to security of person, stick your fascist state.
commented 2018-03-25 00:17:01 -0400
Andrew why can i be forced to call someone a Zhi or whatever the hell they demand?
commented 2018-03-25 00:16:29 -0400
Sick of left wing bigots comparing free will and thought to FGM. PATHETIC!
commented 2018-03-25 00:15:07 -0400
Andrew Stephenson how is disagreeing with abortion infringing on anyones bodily autonomy? IT ISN’T!
If i am ever attacked with a knife i want a gun to protect my bodily autonomy.
https://www.therebel.media/terminally_ill_ontario_man_sues_government_for_medically_assisted_life
Does your concern go for this guy as well? If no then why the hell not.
You can get bent with your communist ideology that you think gives you or the state the right to decide who is allowed free will and who is not, who’s life is worth it or not. You are a communist ghoul.
By the way you will not be the one deciding these issues as the slope gets slippery.
commented 2018-03-25 00:07:29 -0400
Andrew Stephenson FGM is not religious. Being against abortion is not an physical act like FGM. Your comparison is ridiculous and shows your personal bigotry. This is only being applied to ONE religion, there are other groups against these issues and they are not being treated the same so spare me your bigoted ignorance. And everything i listed involves security of the person even if you deny it. Now stick your filthy commie ideology , this is state sanctioned fascism.
commented 2018-03-24 22:40:31 -0400
This will be shut down by the Supreme Court. It will take a couple of years…and lots of money!
commented 2018-03-24 19:37:45 -0400
“Religious discrimination is only one such premise for valid objection to this summer jobs program. "

It’s also the only one being made here, and the only one that has even a faint hope of succeeding as a constitutional challenge

“If a group, religious or not, is a group at all then they must have core tenets otherwise they would not be a group. "
A politician’s answer. Abortion isn’t a core Christian tenet – different sects have different opinions and the interpretation of the Biblical texts vary. I am referring to the Bible specifically, because that’s what is relevant here – as noted above, absent the religious discrimination argument it’s not a constitutional issue, and I see no evidence anybody other than Christian groups are complaining. I might change my mind on that were contrary evidence offered.
Dogma is defined as “a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.” – and religious beliefs fall into this category, even if the connotations hurt your feelings. .

“Once again, this statement is not relevant to the discussion nor the article, a non-sequitur. "
The entire argument revolves around non-universality of payment. The question is fair.
“In so doing, the government is intentionally pushing their liberal beliefs on Canadians”
Apparently respecting an established right is something only Liberals d. Is this your intended meaning? “liberal” isn’t a derogatory epithet.

“It is those new unwarranted and invalid conditions that religious and other non-religious groups are objecting to.”
Didn’t you just argue that universality was a non-sequitur?

“Once again this question is non-sequitur, an invalid argument. FGM is illegal in Canada. There would never be an FGM summer camp. "
The simile is a bit extreme, but deliberately so. The discrepancy is not as significant as you might think – both are a threat to individual autonomy. Abortion restrictions are illegal as well, and there would never be a “forced pregnancy” (which is what you get when you remove the marketing sanitization from the term “pro-life”) summer camp either, yet there are advocates who support both causes, sans summer camp.
commented 2018-03-24 19:14:12 -0400
Andrew stephenson said,
“Peter, what IS the point? Are non-religious groups able to claim religious discrimination? Are religious groups belonging to a sect that doesn’t invariably believe a certain dogma as core, able to claim it so? Is the government mandated to support all such causes? Would you endorse an FGM summer camp getting Federal dollars, because they too can hide behind religious discrimination to get away with security-of-person violations?”

Let’s unpack this.

“Are non-religious groups able to claim religious discrimination?”
What is the point you are making here. Religious discrimination is only one such premise for valid objection to this summer jobs program.

“Are religious groups belonging to a sect that doesn’t invariably believe a certain dogma as core, able to claim it so?”
If a group, religious or not, is a group at all then they must have core tenets otherwise they would not be a group. In addition, your use of the word “dogma” in this context is derogatory and is not a valid descriptor.

“Is the government mandated to support all such causes?”
Once again, this statement is not relevant to the discussion nor the article, a non-sequitur.

The summer jobs program never has had any such conditions attached to it. Adding those conditions now to the summer program the government has created from nothing the conditions necessary to qualify for support. In so doing, the government is intentionally pushing their liberal beliefs on Canadians.

It is those new unwarranted and invalid conditions that religious and other non-religious groups are objecting to.

“Would you endorse an FGM summer camp getting Federal dollars, because they too can hide behind religious discrimination to get away with security-of-person violations?”

Once again this question is non-sequitur, an invalid argument. FGM is illegal in Canada. There would never be an FGM summer camp.
commented 2018-03-24 12:25:05 -0400
Right to bear arms

The right to bear arms has existed in English common law for at least 300 years and is imported into Canadian law by the preamble of the BNA Act, 1867 and section 26 of the Charter. Section 26 declares that traditional rights not listed in the Charter continue to have force and effect in Canada. The first explicit recognition of the right to bear arms in British-Canadian law occurs in the 1689 Bill of Rights. It is re-affirmed by the celebrated Blackstone in his Commentaries as one of the five most important rights of British subjects; and confirmed in several 18th and 19th century precedents. Although this right is subject to regulation by parliament, in Sparrow (1990), the Supreme Court affirmed that regulation of a right does not automatically extinguish the right. The RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS THUS AN HISTORICAL RIGHT OF all “Canadians; affirmed by section 26 of the Charter. Since the Firearms Act prohibits the mere possession of a firearm – even for purposes of self-defense in one’s own home – it violates this right. Given the intimate connection between the right of self-defense and to rights to life, liberty and SECURITY OF THE PERSON protected by section 7 of the Charter, the state must justify its violation of this right according to the strict tests mandated by the Oakes precedent.”
commented 2018-03-24 12:22:11 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
“Security of person” means you control your own body. Your money is not part of your body, and neither are guns.
______________________________________________________________________________

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong? Here is the truth as stated by a legal expert:

“Many Canadians believe (and our government would certainly have us believe) that there is no Right of the citizen to keep arms for their own use and defense, like the US Second Amendment, in Canadian law. To those citizens, I would suggest a bit of reading up on our own history and legal framework.

Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it’s already stated elsewhere in Canadian law. Our right to keep and bear arms in our own or the country’s defense comes from exactly the same place as the American one — English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights 1689, the writings of Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on English Law, and others.

All these laws (and indeed the full body of English Law), became part of Canadian law on our Confederation in 1867 with the affirmation of the British North America (BNA) Act. We have this Right, though our government is attempting to suppress it and deny citizen’s their age-old right to self-defense with the egregious and unconstitutional (not to mention horrendously expensive) Firearms Act and other proposals. It leads one to wonder why the government so wants an unarmed and defenceless populace."
commented 2018-03-24 12:13:46 -0400
GEORGE LUCK commented 1 day ago
With the liberals and other assorted socialists it is always about control and injecting their agenda into every corner of the citizen’s life. From Stalin to Hitler to Castro and most other socialist dignitaries and their regimes, it is always the same: control, control, control. . . .. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
George, it is funny how St. Pierre declared that the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Apparently he was thinking that the bedroom was too limited. Now they are in your kitchen, in your garage, in your rec room, in your board room, in your car, in your church, in your bathroom, in your back yard and ultimately- in your head. Control is, indeed, the goal. If you refuse to be controlled the next step is the ultimate in control. And most Canadians are too stupid to see it. Socialism. Always just one execution away from Utopia.
commented 2018-03-24 10:41:27 -0400
“Drew Wakariuk commented 11 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson are you seriously comparing someones belief to an act of mutilation? These people are not forcing anything on anyone they are expressing themselves. GET REAL! "

Both are religiously justified infringements on one’s own bodily autonomy – in that someone can consider it repugnant for someone else to be making decisions about a woman’s external reproductive organs, while simultaneously telling her what to do with her internal ones.

“Drew Wakariuk commented 11 hours ago
I consider the bug State to be a security of person violation, especially the HRC’s , i find my taxes funding abortion to be a security of person violation,”

“Security of person” means you control your own body. Your money is not part of your body, and neither are guns.
commented 2018-03-24 00:38:31 -0400
This outrage by the Trudeau Liberal government is clearly targeting evangelical Christians for exclusion from the summer jobs program. Trudeau, our ‘inclusive’ PM who considers evangelical Christians “the worst part of Canadian society” (his words), has clearly indicated by this sickening display of totalitarian bullying that he wants to exclude, not include them from any aspect of Canadian societal participation that he can.

Hey, hypocrite ‘inclusive’ Justin, here’s a little ‘exclusive’ thought that comes to mind whenever I think of you:

ENOUGH EXTREME RADICAL LEFT LIBERAL GOVERNMENT IN OTTAWA!! !TRUDEAU OUT IN 2019!!!

I really like it and it dovetails nicely with your policy of EXCLUSION of people you don’t especially like, eh? But I don’t want you to think that I don’t ever think about INCLUSION. Here’s an example for your enjoyment:

ELECT AN ANDREW SCHEER MODERATE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT FOR ALL CANADIANS IN 2019!
commented 2018-03-23 23:32:09 -0400
I consider the bug State to be a security of person violation, especially the HRC’s , i find my taxes funding abortion to be a security of person violation, i find the government taking away guns to be a security of person violation, i find smartphones to be a security of person violation, i find funding terrorists like Justin does to be a security of person violation, i find Justin insulting India to be a security of person violation, i find the phony refugees coming into Canada to be a security of person violation.
commented 2018-03-23 23:28:06 -0400
Bob Rock that is not very progressive , are you afraid of change? Why is it you get to decide what is eternal and what can be challenged?
commented 2018-03-23 23:27:14 -0400
Love how useful idiots think someone opinion they do not agree with violates their security of person. WHAT A JOKE! Spoken like a TRUE COMMUNIST! THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE DOGMA IN HISTORY IS COMMUNISM.
commented 2018-03-23 23:25:55 -0400
Liza Rosie they love to decide for others.
Andrew Stephenson m-103 is about one religion and you have not spoken out against it, so why would you care about certain dogmas being excluded??
commented 2018-03-23 23:21:55 -0400
Andrew Stephenson are you seriously comparing someones belief to an act of mutilation? These people are not forcing anything on anyone they are expressing themselves. GET REAL!
commented 2018-03-23 23:18:41 -0400
It is not only faith based groups who would oppose being forced to go against their beliefs and values. Even if I agreed with it there is something wrong about a government forcing agreement. Very wrong.
commented 2018-03-23 22:51:55 -0400
Why is it that everything the left thinks it has a right to impose to satisfy their needs seems to restrict our rights? Why is there always a loser with the left, no accommodation or respect for opposing opinions. They know best and the gavel comes down. Period, end of discussion. Submit and shut up about it.
Don’t know how long they are going to get away with it.
commented 2018-03-23 22:47:18 -0400
Clearly the way The Charter is written we have no rights. They can make it up as they go along.

“Section 1 of the Charter says that Charter rights can be limited by other laws so long as those limits can be shown to be reasonable in a free and democratic society.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that a limit on Charter rights is acceptable if:

the limit deals with a pressing and substantial social problem, and
the government’s response to the problem is reasonable and demonstrably justified."

I can’t wait to see what they make us sign an attestation to next in order to receive, who knows, CPP? tax return? I put nothing past this increasingly authoritarian government. If Justin gets another term just watch what he does. It is going to be full on crazy.
commented 2018-03-23 20:28:48 -0400
Peter, what IS the point? Are non-religious groups able to claim religious discrimination? Are religious groups belonging to a sect that doesn’t invariably believe a certain dogma as core, able to claim it so? Is the government mandated to support all such causes? Would you endorse an FGM summer camp getting Federal dollars, because they too can hide behind religious discrimination to get away with security-of-person violations?

Mette Reed commented 3 hours ago
And, what Muslim groups are being cut off???
Shameful devious and wouldn’t it be nice to live in Texas!
The abortion debate is NOT over until every Canadian is finished talking about it! I don’t see that happening. As a matter of fact, the Pro-life movement is growing! Abortion is wrong and it is wrong because of not what “man” says, but because of what God say"

You can discuss all you want. It’s essentially navel gazing at this point.

Whether a “God” – who you should just have to believe exists – should be the basis of law is dubious. The Bible does not discuss abortion at all, but as per Exodus, life for life – causing her “fruit depart from her” is merely a fine. Which is to say, that the Bible – presumably the source of your implied divine intent – doesn’t consider it murder either. Exodus 21:22-25

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.