So there's a flap in Canada recently about a federal government summer jobs funding program. Apparently now to get funded, the applicant organization has to attest to some pro-abortion statement by checking on some checkbox.
When I first heard of it I was struck by how bizarre it was, this linkage. What could abortion possibly have to do with summer jobs for students? Anyway this is a straight out attack on Christians and pro-life, demanding that they renounce their beliefs in order to get this money. It is extremely scummy and cowardly to target the children. After all it is the youth, the students, who would be affected by these summer jobs being canceled due to their parents being pro-life. The kids didn't do anything wrong. Be a man Justin Trudeau and have the courage and character to confront your ideological enemies directly; instead of indirectly victimizing their children.
Now some might say render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Tell the federal government to keep their 30 pieces of silver. I guess that's fine for some summer jobs grant. The real issue here isn't about federal funding for summer jobs. It's about establishing a precedent where receipt of government services and benefits is conditional on expressing a particular view. There is no right to remain silent or keep your opinion to yourself, let alone openly hold a contrary opinion. You either attest to a government mandated viewpoint (a record of this attestation is kept permanently) or go without the government service.
Now there is government monopoly health care in Canada. Suppose someone arrives at their hospital emergency department with chest pain and shortness of breath. Upon arrival at triage, the patient is told to either check an abortion checkbox, or be refused health care service, go home and die. Why not, now that a precedent has been established these abortion checkboxes can start popping up everywhere.
Even more corrosive would be like the summer jobs checkbox. Imagine if the checkboxes show up at the emergency of the children's hospital. That would put the parents to a very severe test, faced with having to refuse to attest on behalf of their children and accept the consequences.
If Trudeau is re-elected then it's pretty much a lock that prescription drugs will be nationalized effectively under federal government control. So after 2019 you could go to your pharmacy for your heart or diabetes medicine you need to stay alive, and be told to check this abortion checkbox or go home empty handed. Now by Phillipians 1:19-21 the correct decision is to go home and die. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Well this is what happens when the state is allowed to take control over so much of personal life and the economy. Trudeau demonstrates the government can prove to be a cruel and capricious puppet master. The government giveth, the government taketh away.
--
I will say this about abortion and Trudeau's apparent intent to pick a fight on the abortion issue. The thing about war is, the war only ends when both sides agree to stop fighting. Trudeau may have had the prerogative to start the fight, but it won't be for him to say, okay enough we're not going to talk or fight about abortion any more.
Another thing about war is, you might lose. So you might want to be circumspect and keep the peace, especially if the status quo is favourable to your side. Pick fights carefully. Don't poke a sleeping bear.
Trudeau may feel smug that the courts have been on his side for at least the last 30 years. However judges and supreme court judges can change. Elected governments can change. Laws can be changed. The constitution can be changed. The notwithstanding clause is available.
--
Previous Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper pretty much had it right. They accepted the courts decisions, perhaps with disappointment, and were resistant to having a public fight on such a divisive issue. Another politician who had it right was actually Bill Clinton with the doctrine of "safe legal and rare".
What's interesting and powerful about that is the third part, the "rare". Because it is actually common ground between pro-life and pro-choice. Something both sides can commit to achieving, perhaps in different ways. I believe the best strategy for pro-life is to leave aside the safe and legal part and focus on making abortion rare. After all if it is extremely rare then it would be moot if it was safe and legal. So pro-life can win by winning on rare, that part that matters most.
It's unfortunate that safe legal and rare is hardly talked about any more. In this current abortion fight there is no mention of rare in the attestation checkbox text. Instead it is now so common and accepted in our culture that it is part of applying for some summer job.
I suspect rare can be achieved. It requires cultural change, which is hard but I think achievable. Figure out how to change the culture so that these situations are seldom conceived in the first place. That would help, head off the problem at the source. Also change the culture so that if someone is in a difficult situation, then actually having the child is a less-bad option than abortion. Culturally, some type of Anna Karenina social stigma where someone who does the wrong thing and chooses abortion is then unable to rejoin polite society afterward.
2 comments:
You are completely misrepresenting the situation. You are willfully doing so, or are grossly misinformed. The attestation reads as follows:
"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 or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;"
This matter is not concerned with anyone's personal beliefs. It is concerned with organizations taking government money, and using it to try to subvert the rights of Canadian citizens.
"The real issue here isn't about federal funding for summer jobs. It's about establishing a precedent where receipt of government services and benefits is conditional on expressing a particular view"
Can you not see that the government is not forcing people to express a view? I simply cannot understand how someone can claim "This company will respect human rights" is the equivalent of "I support women having abortions." It's not even close.
So why are you using this slippery slope argument? This matter seems to have a lot of people upset, and I'm trying to figure out why. Sadly, I can only come up with two reasons.
1) They believe in their ideologies (pro-life / anti-gay / racist / xenophobic / etc) so strongly that they are completely outraged that Canadians are afforded certain freedoms by our Charter. They would actually like to see their tax dollars used to oppress the citizens of their own country. This is terribly sad, and it has got to be absolutely suffocating to live a life this way.
2) They hear the words Trudeau and abortion, and go completely off the rails without needing to hear any more. They hate him so much that they are triggered by certain phrases, and that's all they need to go on a Trudeau rant, facts be damned.
I am hoping there's a third option which I am just not understanding.
Anony mouse,
Everyone knows that "reproductive rights" is code words for "abortion on demand". That's what the attestation is about.
Of course individual view and organization view are effectively the same thing, especially for a religious organization. To work for or be the local administrator of a religious organization is to personally associate yourself with the organization and its official views. You are trying to create a false escape hatch for individuals who attested by saying it was the "organization" that attested, not the individual whose personal signature is on the form. That is bogus anyway as the individual generally is not authorized to speak to official church position. For example in the Catholic church only the Pope can express doctrine. Anything else is the personal opinion of the individual church member. If you checked the checkbox and personally signed the form then it is sticky on you personally and publicly available under the freedom of information act long into the future.
From your point 1. above. I don't think you are trying too hard to understand the perspective of those concerned about the checkbox. You seem content to instead clutch the slogans of your SJW rosary. so whatever.
I'm glad you were able to grasp one of the key parts. This is to establish a precedent where receipt of government service and benefits is conditional on expressing a particular view. Indeed now that the precedent is established the way is clear for these checkboxes to start appearing in new places such as at hospital ER. Historically the civil service was politically neutral, and elected government was careful to keep separate individual personal views from the administration of government responsibilities and programs. Not so much now.
Post a Comment