Canada's Summer Work Funding Against Charter of Rights?
I don't get it. I read this and I can't fathom how the author can draw the conclusions that they did.
The sum up, the article suggests Trudeau read the Charter of Rights because the author feels the move is equivalent to the prior government's bill which was largely known as the "hijab ban". The "hijab ban" would have required members of faiths with religious face coverings to remove them to receive certain public services. In other words, it would require someone to violate their religion to receive the same rights as someone who didn't have that religious requirement.
I actually see this ruling by the government a step in the same direction as the repeal, rather an equivalence. Canadians have certain rights. One of those rights afforded by our government is the right to make choices regarding things like religion as well as things like granting women reproductive rights.
No group in Canada has an intrinsic right to federal funding. Period. Denying a group federal funding is NOT an act of depriving anyone of any of their charter rights. Similarly, funding groups who outright reject the rights of Canadian's could put others in danger, however remote and indirect.
Put another way, the new rules may exclude certain religious groups from receiving funding. But in doing so, the government is making a decision to not directly help finance groups whose beliefs run against the rights which the government believes every citizen should have.
I would also state that the organizations making a stink over this are A) lucky that funding is available at all, and B) I don't think they should have any conscientious issues with receiving the funding.
As for the matter of conscience:
The wording of the proposed bill merely states that to receive the funding you "respect" people's rights to the things indicated by the checkbox. Last time I went to church, I can certainly agree that the church didn't advocate for abortions. But, at the same time, they did nothing to disrespect the rights of those who had received them. In fact, they were still welcomed by the church community. And while this may not be the same of all churches, none of the churches I ever attended sought to undermine or deprive people of those rights. In short, I believe that while they disagreed with abortions by and large they still respected people's rights to them.
You may counter and say that "by checking the box we are effectively giving abortion our stamp of approval". But, I would say accepting money from a government which advocates for the rights of women to have an abortion in the first place is identical in it's degree of complicity. The only difference is now they're being expected to explicitly acknowledge that they are complicit. By accepting the government money, you accept the government. If that government respects women's rights to abortion, then you give them your stamp of approval when you take their money.
As to the other point... I'm a little shocked to find that religious groups are entitled to such government funding at all.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the individual programs. I'm sure some serve some very noble ends. Religious groups do a lot of good in their communities and a lot of that is even given to members outside of their faith with no expectations. I don't want to play down the good these groups can do. But, in a country with multiple religions and many people not affiliated with any religion, to give public money to a secular group in the first place seems like a bad idea that can only lead to pointless bickering and fighting... much like this whole debate.
Government funding is not a charter right. I fail to see how not receiving funding for summer jobs in any way interferes with someone's right to practice their faith.
For those too lazy to Google it... here is the Canadian Charter of Rights. Restricting a person's right to wear clothing they believe is mandated by their faith in exchange for what are common and in many ways mandatory public services is reasonable to be seen as a violation 2a. THIS is why the Harper's government lost THAT particular debate. The law could interfere directly with a citizen's access to that Charter guaranteed right. It would directly expose people to discrimination based on their religion.
First and foremost, an organization (like a church) is not a citizen. The institution itself has no protection under the Chart of Rights. Secondly, as I've said a few times, by denying this funding, there is no clear way I can see that citizens would in any way shape or form be denied their religious freedoms or any other rights outlined in the Charter. Basically, the original article in my mind is a false equivalency.
And I have no doubts that religious groups will indeed try to take the government to court over the matter. Because, hey we love suing people and institutions. But, ultimately, if the bill gets passed, I don't see the Supreme Court overruling it. At least, not on the basis of the Charter of Rights. There may be other grounds to fight it. I don't know. The law is discriminatory in that it aims to avoid providing financial assistance to groups which might seek to violate the charter rights of others. While I don't think that is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that there isn't some law which could bar the Liberals from having it overruled.
The sum up, the article suggests Trudeau read the Charter of Rights because the author feels the move is equivalent to the prior government's bill which was largely known as the "hijab ban". The "hijab ban" would have required members of faiths with religious face coverings to remove them to receive certain public services. In other words, it would require someone to violate their religion to receive the same rights as someone who didn't have that religious requirement.
I actually see this ruling by the government a step in the same direction as the repeal, rather an equivalence. Canadians have certain rights. One of those rights afforded by our government is the right to make choices regarding things like religion as well as things like granting women reproductive rights.
No group in Canada has an intrinsic right to federal funding. Period. Denying a group federal funding is NOT an act of depriving anyone of any of their charter rights. Similarly, funding groups who outright reject the rights of Canadian's could put others in danger, however remote and indirect.
Put another way, the new rules may exclude certain religious groups from receiving funding. But in doing so, the government is making a decision to not directly help finance groups whose beliefs run against the rights which the government believes every citizen should have.
I would also state that the organizations making a stink over this are A) lucky that funding is available at all, and B) I don't think they should have any conscientious issues with receiving the funding.
As for the matter of conscience:
The wording of the proposed bill merely states that to receive the funding you "respect" people's rights to the things indicated by the checkbox. Last time I went to church, I can certainly agree that the church didn't advocate for abortions. But, at the same time, they did nothing to disrespect the rights of those who had received them. In fact, they were still welcomed by the church community. And while this may not be the same of all churches, none of the churches I ever attended sought to undermine or deprive people of those rights. In short, I believe that while they disagreed with abortions by and large they still respected people's rights to them.
You may counter and say that "by checking the box we are effectively giving abortion our stamp of approval". But, I would say accepting money from a government which advocates for the rights of women to have an abortion in the first place is identical in it's degree of complicity. The only difference is now they're being expected to explicitly acknowledge that they are complicit. By accepting the government money, you accept the government. If that government respects women's rights to abortion, then you give them your stamp of approval when you take their money.
As to the other point... I'm a little shocked to find that religious groups are entitled to such government funding at all.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the individual programs. I'm sure some serve some very noble ends. Religious groups do a lot of good in their communities and a lot of that is even given to members outside of their faith with no expectations. I don't want to play down the good these groups can do. But, in a country with multiple religions and many people not affiliated with any religion, to give public money to a secular group in the first place seems like a bad idea that can only lead to pointless bickering and fighting... much like this whole debate.
Government funding is not a charter right. I fail to see how not receiving funding for summer jobs in any way interferes with someone's right to practice their faith.
For those too lazy to Google it... here is the Canadian Charter of Rights. Restricting a person's right to wear clothing they believe is mandated by their faith in exchange for what are common and in many ways mandatory public services is reasonable to be seen as a violation 2a. THIS is why the Harper's government lost THAT particular debate. The law could interfere directly with a citizen's access to that Charter guaranteed right. It would directly expose people to discrimination based on their religion.
First and foremost, an organization (like a church) is not a citizen. The institution itself has no protection under the Chart of Rights. Secondly, as I've said a few times, by denying this funding, there is no clear way I can see that citizens would in any way shape or form be denied their religious freedoms or any other rights outlined in the Charter. Basically, the original article in my mind is a false equivalency.
And I have no doubts that religious groups will indeed try to take the government to court over the matter. Because, hey we love suing people and institutions. But, ultimately, if the bill gets passed, I don't see the Supreme Court overruling it. At least, not on the basis of the Charter of Rights. There may be other grounds to fight it. I don't know. The law is discriminatory in that it aims to avoid providing financial assistance to groups which might seek to violate the charter rights of others. While I don't think that is a bad thing, it doesn't mean that there isn't some law which could bar the Liberals from having it overruled.
Comments
Post a Comment