You will remember that just before Christmas the federal government announced that it will no longer grant Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) funding to employers unless they attest that they are in favour of government ideology on social policy. The attestation says:

both the job and my 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.

Many Christian charities have decided that they cannot attest to this statement as it is worded for a number of reasons. First, it is vaguely written, being open to a number of interpretations; second, it appears to suggest that charities are responsible for applying the Charter in their workplace as if they were government actors, which they are not; third, it introduces a new values test for government support. No one should ever have to agree with government opinions in order to access government programming.

Not only religious groups have voiced their opposition; many across the political and social spectrum also recognize the problem. As Paula Simons, of the Edmonton Journal noted on January 17, 2018:

“I’m a pro-choice feminist. But I find myself deeply disturbed by a new federal rule that says any small business or not-for-profit group applying for a Canada Summer Jobs grant must first “attest” to their support for legal access to abortion. Where does that leave groups like Catholic Social Services or the Mennonite Centre for Newcomers or other faith-based social service agencies that do vital work in our communities? And where does that leave respect for the Charter itself? I support a woman’s right to control her body. But I also support freedom of conscience, of religion, of thought.”

The government sought to alleviate opposition by issuing “Supplementary Information”. However, this did not satisfy the criticism because their definitions only created further confusion while keeping the attestation in place.

The motion before the House of Commons today, which will be voted on March 19, states as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, organizations that engage in non-political non-activist work, such as feeding the homeless, helping refugees, and giving kids an opportunity to go to camp, should be able to access Canada Summer Jobs funding regardless of their private convictions and regardless of whether or not they choose to sign the application attestation.

During today’s debate the government continued to insist that they are not seeking compliance with beliefs, but rather activities. They argue they are concerned with the actions of those organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Bio-ethical Reform that display pictures of aborted fetuses and distribute anti-abortion literature door-to-door.

The government fails to recognize that regardless of how the government has reinterpreted the attestation, religious communities still maintain that they cannot and will not “check the box.” They cannot separate their beliefs from their activities. In essence, the government is saying, “Trust us and tick the box. We will not discriminate against you if you are not doing what the CCBR are doing.” That is precisely the problem. The failure to remove the attestation has meant a loss of trust for many who oppose.

Michael Cooper pointed out that while the Prime Minister talks “diversity, inclusivity, tolerance — actions speak louder than words. Actions are different than their words. They have no regard for fundamental freedoms.” He called on the government to “Do the right thing and withdraw this bigoted test.”

Ted Falk pointed out that “Political leaders need to make peace with diversity.” That includes the religious community which may not have the same view as the government.

Mona Fortier countered that, from the government’s perspective, “Taxpayer’s money should not be used by organizations that would undermine rights of women to make their own choices.” She noted “We extended the deadline by one week. Under represented young people — indigenous, immigrants, minority languages, LGBTQ2 — all have the right to be included.”

Similarly, Brian May claimed “There is a lot of misinformation on the CSJ, but there are strong supporters of the attestation.” He explained, “CSJ requires the job and organization respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our duty is to preserve our values and values underlying the Charter.”

Identifying the central issue at stake, Harold Albrecht argued, “No one has the right to prevent others to practice their beliefs, especially the government. Think about the loss to our community because groups could not sign the attestation.”

Kevin Sorenson asked, “With all due respect, what’s next? Now it is about #CanadaSummerJobs. If we do not line up with the government, what’s next?”

That line of questioning was taken up by Lisa Raitt who suggested what could be next. She noted that the CRA’s application for registered charitable status is quite extensive. A charity’s application to be registered already entails screening of purposes and activities to ensure that they are not contrary to Canadian public policy. She then queried if the CRA already does such a review, why this attestation? In her view, the attestation requirement is about changing the Canadian public policy so that eventually the government will force registered charities go through a similar test.

When I posted Raitt’s comments on my Twitter account I was interested to see that one pro-choice advocate confirmed that, indeed, Raitt is on the right track.

They also provided a link to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s policy paper wherein they call for the removal of registered charitable status of charities that do not support abortion.  As the paper points out:

Almost all anti-abortion groups are religiously-based and motivated, because the anti-choice viewpoint is fundamentally a religious doctrine. Some counselling groups proselytize openly (often to unsuspecting and vulnerable clients), even though they obtained their charitable status on claims of being “educational” or engaged in “research” or “family/crisis counselling.” In fact, most Canadian anti-abortion counselling centres with charitable status are explicitly Christian.

Given the fact that the federal government is highly attuned to the demands of the pro-abortion community, this latest call for the removal of registered charitable status for religious communities that have an “anti-abortion” position has got to be taken seriously. This forms part of the reasoning which compels CCCC and other religious groups to push back against the CSJ attestation requirement. In short, the attestation is but the thin edge of the wedge.

On March 19 the House of Commons will continue this debate and a vote will be called. In the meantime, there is much work to be done. You can contact your local Member of Parliament requesting that he or she vote in favor of this motion, because through this motion the country has an opportunity to let its voice be heard. The result will directly impact the lives of students and public benefit programs that charities, non-profits and small businesses have been unable to carry out thanks to the attestation requirement. To find out who your Member of Parliament is and how to contact them go to http://www.ourcommons.ca/parliamentarians/en/constituencies/FindMP

The post Parliament to Vote on March 19 on the Canada Summer Jobs Program appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,” said Justice Robert Jackson, of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1943, “it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.”

No official can prescribe what shall be orthodox in matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. That was just plain common sense in 1943. However, it seems to be anything but in the view of the newly contrived dictate of the Law Society of Ontario to all Ontario lawyers that we must follow the “star” of “Culture Shift”.

The Law Society is now requiring lawyers to create their own “Statement of Principles” they must follow to ensure their offices are diverse. “The intention of the statement of principles,” says the Society, “is to demonstrate a personal valuing of equality, diversity, and inclusion with respect to the employment of others, or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person”. This is part of the Society’s plan to conscript lawyers and paralegals to accelerate a “Culture Shift” in its progressive agenda.  

At first glance one might see this requirement as harmless. What could be better than lawyers committing to hire and deal with others based on mutual respect for equality and diversity? Who could be against these goals?  We all want a more inclusive, diverse society – one that ensures everyone is equal.  It all sounds great until you consider that behind that velvet glove is an iron fist.

The requirement to “demonstrate a personal valuing” of equality, diversity and inclusion is to compel lawyers to express that they adhere to and believe in the “values” dictated by the law society. There is no option to simply obey the dictate; one must “demonstrate a personal valuing” of those ideals. In other words, “everyone is a believer” whether you like it or not. The Society has said those who do not abide by its new regulation will face a letter of reprimand. What comes after that letter if there is still intransigence is unclear.

The genius of our Western Civilization is that every citizen is free. Free to believe or not to believe. It is one thing for the state to force compliance to a law that is deemed to be in the public interest. But, it is a very different matter for the state to demand that I, the citizen, believe in that law. The state is not God. My human rights are not determined by what I believe. That may have been the case for those living in Soviet Russia; or Hitler’s Germany; or now, in Kim’s North Korea; but not here. Our rights are guaranteed in the Charter – full stop – no belief is necessary.

It is with a great measure of relief that I can support law professor Ryan Alford’s application against the Law Society that was filed in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice on November 6. Professor Alford teaches at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law at Lakehead University. He requests that the court grant an immediate order preventing the Law Society from implementing its new policy until the court hears his case that the Statement of Principles requirement “is contrary to the rule of law.”

Professor Alford knows of what he speaks. His doctoral research was recently published by McGill-Queens University Press, in a work entitled, “Permanent State of Emergency: The Demise of the Rule of Law in the United States.” A legal scholar on the rule of law is desperately needed for this case.

It is a marvel that it would have to come to this. The Law Society’s intention was, without a doubt, altruistic. But it was misguided and not in keeping with our concept of freedom. Justice Jackson’s stunning rebuke of the West Virginia Board of Education’s requirement that students salute the flag in 1943 is prescient for what Ontario lawyers face today.

“Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment,” noted Justice Jackson, “in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. . . . As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. . . . Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

Of course, there is no graveyard in sight for Ontario lawyers; that is ridiculous. However, that is where the elimination of dissent ultimately leads in the extreme. Human nature has not changed throughout the millennia. When we think we have the “truth,” we want to enforce it. Error has no rights; at least that is the view of the Law Society on the issue of enforcing the “Culture Shift”.

The post Culture Shift: Challenging the Star in Ontario Law Society’s Constellation appeared first on CCCC Blogs.