This is real political correctness - Canada requires 'core mandate' of organisations to be pro-abortion to access summer jobs grant

Niall996

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,823
As usual with governments the Canadian government is saying that, but it's not in line with what the organisations are asked to sign - an attestation that they do agree with abortion.

The Trudeau government is great at getting things backwards - instead of asking about the bad thing that they have defined (that the core mandate of an organisation IS about opposing abortion) - they are asking for organisations to attest that their core mandate agrees with access to abortion.

The core mandates of most organisations say nothing about abortion, yet the Trudeau government is asking any organisation that wants one of these grants to attest that they do agree with abortion as part of their core mandate.

It's madness.

Trudeau and his ministers are waffling about this now - that there’s a difference between a group founded solely to oppose abortions and a religious group that happens to hold pro-life beliefs - but the latter sorts of groups are still required to sign that pro-abortion attestation.
No, that's not it. No one is being asked to support abortion at all. You can oppose abortion and still get your grants. What is being asked is that you respect the law and democratically determined values of the land. The grants come from taxpayers money. You can't have taxpayers being asked to pay contributions to organisations that don't respect the laws of their country. These churches can oppose abortion but accept the taxpayers rights to permit reproductive rights. They'll tick the box and get their money.
 


Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,655
I'm just wondering what the point is of the "so much for tolerant liberals!" line.
I did not write that line. But I'd interpreted it as; people like your good self present themselves as tolerant. When in fact you and they are anything but. Rather completely intolerant of any other view point other than yer own. I guess the quote means that the fact that, at least in Canada, they will attempt to legislate that bigotry means the veil has completely slipped. i.e. "so much for tolerant liberals!"
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
Well, is the belief correct or isn't it?
There is no correct belief with respect to this issue.

There are a variety of beliefs about it.

Pretending that there is only one correct belief about any political issue is the very definition of political correctness. It's dangerous.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

No, that's not it. No one is being asked to support abortion at all. You can oppose abortion and still get your grants. What is being asked is that you respect the law and democratically determined values of the land. The grants come from taxpayers money. You can't have taxpayers being asked to pay contributions to organisations that don't respect the laws of their country. These churches can oppose abortion but accept the taxpayers rights to permit reproductive rights. They'll tick the box and get their money.
Why?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,872
I did not write that line. But I'd interpreted it as; people like your good self present themselves as tolerant. When in fact you and they are anything but. Rather completely intolerant of any other view point other than yer own. I guess the quote means that the fact that, at least in Canada, they will attempt to legislate that bigotry means the veil has completely slipped. i.e. "so much for tolerant liberals!"
I don't present myself as tolerant, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Is the thought supposed to be that people like you are tolerant? Or merely that you are intolerant but not hypocritical?
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
No, that's not it. No one is being asked to support abortion at all. You can oppose abortion and still get your grants. What is being asked is that you respect the law and democratically determined values of the land. The grants come from taxpayers money. You can't have taxpayers being asked to pay contributions to organisations that don't respect the laws of their country. These churches can oppose abortion but accept the taxpayers rights to permit reproductive rights. They'll tick the box and get their money.
That is it.

The Liberal government disagrees with you.

In their scramble to try to sort out the mess that they have created they are all over the place. Now they are saying that the issue is about the activities of the organisation, not its values.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/01/23/liberals-say-summer-job-funding-based-on-organizations-activities-not-values.html

"OTTAWA—The Liberal government has clarified how its new policy on reproductive rights will apply to organizations seeking youth summer job funding — but it’s standing firm on its decision to deny grants to groups advocating against abortion.

“I have reached out to many of the religious leaders across the country ... to let them know that this is about the activities of the organization and the job description,” Employment Minister Patty Hajdu said Tuesday in Toronto.

“It is not about beliefs or values.”


If it IS about activities and not values then why ask organisations to attest to a certain set of values?

The Canadian government has really messed up here.

Why didn't they just have a relevant question asking something like "does your organisation conduct anti-abortion activities as part of its core mandate?"?

Of course they created the original issue by handing out grant money to anti-abortion groups last year. As it says in that article:

"The decision stems from a controversy last year when officials approved tens of thousands of dollars for anti-abortion groups in at least two ridings."

They took a bad situation and made it worse. They are inept.
 

Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,655
I don't present myself as tolerant, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Is the thought supposed to be that people like you are tolerant? Or merely that you are intolerant but not hypocritical?
Maybe it's your misunderstood. Are you admitting that you are a bigot but not a hypocrite?
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,452
I don't present myself as tolerant, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Is the thought supposed to be that people like you are tolerant? Or merely that you are intolerant but not hypocritical?
Liberal used to be used to describe a person who was tolerant of views not their own and to have the ability to defend their own views through argument.

It seems to have been hijacked by right ring fascists like you who would happily kill all those who dare disagree with your opinion of the day.

You are, by your own admission, intolerant. An intolerant liberal is an oxymoron. You are neither liberal nor tolerant. You are classic right wing fascist.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
The law is one thing, but there is no such thing as the "democratically determined values of the land".

Respecting the law is one thing, but you don't have to agree with it. That's why laws are changing all of the time. Different sets of people have different values, and laws change all the time as one political party gains power after another has been in power.

Is Niall really saying that the set of laws that a government rules under reflects the "democratically determined values of the land"? They change all of the time, so that would mean that the "democratically determined values of the land" change all of the time.

This is the big danger of PCness - the belief that when 1 specific government gets laws changed to suit their political opinions that those laws are "correct" and can't be changed to laws that reflects a different set of political opinions.
 

General Urko

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
15,702
I wonder what the abortion rate in Canada is for foetuses with genetic disabilities eg down syndrome?:mad:
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
Liberal used to be used to describe a person who was tolerant of views not their own and to have the ability to defend their own views through argument.

It seems to have been hijacked by right ring fascists like you who would happily kill all those who dare disagree with your opinion of the day.

You are, by your own admission, intolerant. An intolerant liberal is an oxymoron. You are neither liberal nor tolerant. You are classic right wing fascist.

Well said.

I'd call him a classic authoritarian - I don't see that being right or left comes into it. He simply thinks that what he believes is right and should be imposed on everyone, and that any other beliefs are wrong.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,872
Liberal used to be used to describe a person who was tolerant of views not their own and to have the ability to defend their own views through argument.

It seems to have been hijacked by right ring fascists like you who would happily kill all those who dare disagree with your opinion of the day.

You are, by your own admission, intolerant. An intolerant liberal is an oxymoron. You are neither liberal nor tolerant. You are classic right wing fascist.
Okay. So what?
 

Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,655
No. I'm explaining to you that I don't present myself as tolerant.
That's not my experience.

Is that you believe that you don't present yourself as tolerant but are nonetheless tolerant or that you neither present yourself as tolerant nor are tolerant?
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,872
Well said.

I'd call him a classic authoritarian - I don't see that being right or left comes into it. He simply thinks that what he believes is right and should be imposed on everyone, and that any other beliefs are wrong.
...

Most people believe that what they believe is right and other beliefs are wrong. That's kind of how beliefs work...
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
If there is no correct view, then it doesn't matter whether the government supports it.
It matters if the government requires declarations of support for it when deciding who to hand public funds out to.

That's discrimination.

This is more like a typical corrupt modern-day African government - funds only go to those who support the positions of the ruling regime.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,872
That's not my experience.

Is that you believe that you don't present yourself as tolerant but are nonetheless tolerant or that you neither present yourself as tolerant nor are tolerant?
I am tolerant of some things, and not of others. Like most people. But I don't claim that tolerance is something valuable in and of itself.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top