Anyone following this ?

[tweety]

There you have it. Selective support for the Charter.

You cannot have it both ways, sawfly (and tweety). But you just wrote down for all to see that you do want it both ways based on what YOU believe.

i have no idea what you are trying to say. We both said we support the charter. Please explain.

Klause, attack the person when you have nothing to actually say. Classy.

[furrowtickler]

I seriously don't know why you guys keep arguing with tweety. He's a troll, and arguing for effect to get others mad.


Which is why I rarely engage him unless i've had a scotch and am in a fighting mood. LOL.


I find it funny that religious organizations have to attest to gays and abortion... but not FGM (cutting girls' clitorises off).

Actually, we were going to remove the part of the citizenship guide that said it was illegal here.


Any time you start selectively enforcing laws... you end up with a dictatorship. It's a slippery slope down cultural marxism.

I Thats why I started this thread . There is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
My fear is exactly what you said in the last line .
There has been millions of federal money given off shore to religious organizations... aka Aga Kahn , with no check box on summer student employee forms . A lot of these off shore organizations practice things that are against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Feerdoms but are getting our tax payer money.
If they are going to shut out funding for the pro Life , they better be pressured to shut off funding (our tax 💰) for all who don’t up hold our Canadian Charter ... period. Don’t just push a one way agenda .

[chuckChuck]

I Thats why I started this thread . There is a lot more to it than meets the eye.
My fear is exactly what you said in the last line .
There has been millions of federal money given off shore to religious organizations... aka Aga Kahn , with no check box on summer student employee forms . A lot of these off shore organizations practice things that are against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Feerdoms but are getting our tax payer money.
If they are going to shut out funding for the pro Life , they better be pressured to shut off funding (our tax 💰) for all who don’t up hold our Canadian Charter ... period. Don’t just push a one way agenda .

Give us an example of funding to offshore religious organizations. How much? To whom and what was it intended for?

[tweety]

Totally agree with that furrow. But how do you protect the rights and freedoms set out in the charter for all Canadians?

There is no laws either for or against abortion, only the right of women in Canada to choose, so not sure which laws you figure are being selectively enforced?

[chuckChuck]

Funding from Harper?
Government of Canada and Aga Khan sign funding agreement for Global Centre for Pluralism

Ottawa, Canada, 25 October 2006 - His Highness the Aga Khan will meet today on Parliament Hill with The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, and The Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage, to sign a funding agreement for the Global Centre for Pluralism, to be located in Ottawa, Canada.

The Global Centre for Pluralism is a major new international centre for research, education and exchange about the values, practices and policies that underpin pluralist societies. Drawing inspiration from the Canadian experience, the centre will function as a global repository and source for knowledge about fostering pluralistic values, policies, and practices. It will work with countries to nurture successful civil societies in which every citizen, irrespective of cultural, religious or ethnic differences, is able to realize his or her full potential.

“The rejection of pluralism is pervasive across the globe and plays a significant role in breeding destructive conflicts,” says the Aga Khan. The Centre will therefore undertake research, deliver programs, facilitate dialogue, develop pedagogical materials and work with civil society partners worldwide to build the capacities of individuals, groups, educational institutions and governments to promote indigenous approaches to pluralism in their own countries and communities.

The Aga Khan has described the Canadian practice of seeking unity in diversity as “Canada’s gift to the world.” The decision to locate this major new institution in Canada’s capital city was therefore a natural one. The mission of the Centre supports several key Canadian international policy objectives, among them the promotion of democracy and good governance, a more equitable sharing of the world’s resources between developed and developing countries, and the projection of Canadian values, such as the rule of law, human rights and respect for diversity.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Government of Canada will contribute C$30 million towards the establishment of the Centre’s endowment fund. The Aga Khan will contribute a minimum of C$30 million toward the endowment and the refurbishing of the former Canadian War Museum, which the Government is making available on a long-term lease to serve as the Centre’s global headquarters.

Registered under Canadian law as a non-denominational, bilingual, non-profit organization, the Centre will be guided by an independent Board of Directors made up of leading Canadians and high-profile individuals from around the world. The Board will be jointly constituted by the Aga Khan Development Network and the Government of Canada. His Highness the Aga Khan will lead the Board as Chairman.

Drawing on the pluralistic model of Canada and the diversity of the Ismaili community worldwide, today’s announcement marks the culmination of a long-standing dialogue initiated in 2002. Since that time, both the Government and the Centre have consulted with a number of leading Canadians and civil society institutions to validate the mandate and proposed activities of the Centre. The Global Centre for Pluralism will engage with a wide range of partners, among them civil society organizations, research institutes, and academic institutions. The programmatic activities of the Centre will begin in 2007.

For further information, please contact: Jennifer Morrow
Manager, Communications
Aga Khan Foundation Canada
360 Albert Street, Suite 1220
Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7X7
Canada
Telephone: 613-237-2532 ext. 109
Fax: 613-567-2532
E-mail: jennifer@akfc.ca

[chuckChuck]

https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/1-aga-khan-foundation-canada
Aga Khan Foundation Canada
199 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1N 1K6
CEO: Khalil Z. Shariff
Board Chair: Riaz Ahmed

Founded in 1980, Aga Khan Foundation Canada (AKFC) is an international development agency that is part of the global Aga Khan Development Network. Working in 13 countries, AKFC focuses on social, economic and cultural development to improve living conditions and opportunities for the poor. AKFC reports that it operates in Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kenya, Tajikistan, Egypt, Kyrgyz Republic, Tanzania, India, Mali, Uganda and Mozambique. AKFC’s work centers on health, education, rural development, and strengthening of civil society.

Aga Khan Foundation Canada’s international development work is financed by public support, a longstanding partnership with the Government of Canada, collaborations with other development agencies, and direct support from the Aga Khan Foundation in Geneva, Switzerland.

Global Affairs Canada (GAC) works in partnership with Aga Khan Foundation Canada. Its largest ongoing GAC-funded project is the Partnership for Advancing Human Development in Africa and Asia, which received $74.75 million in funding from F2012 to F2017. This project works primarily in Tanzania, Kenya, Afghanistan and Pakistan (67% of spending). AKFC will also be receiving $55 million from F2016 to F2020 for GAC’s Health Action Plan for Afghanistan project. Further, AKFC received $40.1 million from F2012 to F2015 for GAC’s Improving Maternal, Newborn and Child Health in Afghanistan.

AKFC’s Improving Maternal, Newborn and Child Health project works in Bamyan and Badakhshan, Afghanistan. In F2015, GAC reports that it finished the construction of the first phase of the Bamyan Provincial Hospital, a 120-bed hospital, which is more than 80% completed. GAC also reports that 19,854 individuals suffering from malnutrition received treatment, and that 193,801 men, women and children received training on water, hygiene, sanitation and nutrition.

Beginning in 2014, AKFC’s education program has been working on a five-year project to strengthen pre-primary and primary education systems in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. This project has so far built 850 community libraries, 100 early childhood development centres, educated 2,800 parents on the importance of reading with their children, trained 4,000 parents and community members on how to improve education quality in their schools, and 2,318 education leaders were trained to support and mentor teachers. These results have so far benefited over 340,000 children, teachers, school administrators, parents, and community members.

AKFC’s education program has also been supporting education for girls and women in Afghanistan since 2008 using what the charity calls a “collaborative whole school improvement approach”. This program has so far enabled over 175,000 Afghan girls to be able to attend school.
Financial Review:

Aga Khan Foundation Canada is a Major 100 charity with F2016 donations of $63m. Its administrative costs were 4% of revenues. The charity does not break out its fundraising costs on its audited financial statements, and AKFC’s F2016 CRA T3010 filing was unavailable at the time of this profile. As a result, the F2016 administrative costs on this profile are inclusive of fundraising costs. For every dollar donated, 96 cents go towards AKFC’s programs, falling outside Ci’s reasonable range. AKFC has $74.7m in funding reserves, resulting in a program cost coverage ratio of 76%. This means that the charity can cover just over 9 months of its annual program costs using its existing reserves.

This charity report is an update that is being reviewed by Aga Khan Foundation Canada. Changes and edits may be forthcoming.

Updated on July 14, 2017 by Kevin Silberberg.

[tweety]

Stay focused people!!!

Why should the government fund organizations that lobby against the charter? Not some of the charter, but any facet of the charter.

Do you realize if they said or didn't say abortion, that it still is a right for women in Canada to choose - and that you still couldn't check the box?

How is this possibly a slippery slope? Rights and freedoms are in the charter. The thing that isn't in the charter is religious organizations to force their beliefs on Canadian summer students making them do things contrary to the charter, and the government refuses to fund that.

[chuckChuck]

So Harper and the Conservatives have funded the AGA Khan foundation. Looks like they are primarily working on education and healthcare initiatives for women and children.

What does the Aga Khan Development Network do?

In 2013, Vanity Fair described the Aga Khan’s global charity network as a “staggeringly large and effective organization,” akin to “his own UN … that also includes an enormous portfolio of for-profit businesses.”

The network employs 80,000 people in 30 countries, operating universities, hospitals and school programs for people in poor and war-torn parts of the world, regardless of their faith.

The Aga Khan’s Canadian charity, the Aga Khan Foundation, is part of this network. Since 2004, the Canadian government has sponsored 16 global development initiatives in partnership with the foundation, worth a total of more than $300 million.

The foundation’s projects do everything from supporting craft producers in Mozambique to investing in childhood education in Bangladesh or working to improve women’s health in Afghanistan.

[Blaithin]

What this thread has made clear is two things - 1) it's okay to violate the Charter, or parts thereof, when the left wants to, and 2) it's nearly impossible to uphold the basis of morality where it is outright rejected.

Talk about double standard - it's a Liberal thing.

And if it was the other way and was the right pushing pro life on people.... would this discussion be occurring the other way? Would people, like Sheepwheat, be saying "Oh no, you can have an abortion if you like." or would they be using it to push their views and religions on others and say "There! Now you can't have an abortion!"

Which could then lead us into the disaster of the American abortion debate where women feel so discriminated and stigmatized for abortions that, even when they need one to stay alive, some will choose to suffer and die. Or take their own lives.


I can say I have little problem with the original topic issue. But I'm pro choice so that's why and I recognize that fact. It doesn't really impact me so I don't have a problem with it. Such is human nature. If it was the other way you're damn right I would be upset!

BUT - I really don't see how or why the government feels the need to start imposing such things on people. I wouldn't say it's their place until the time it may become an issue of infringement on the broader population. IE) Removing the option to get an abortion from everyone or forcing everyone to get an abortion. Fund them, don't fund them, it is government money for them to decide but I really don't know why they would open such a dirty can of worms over this.

Honestly, the fact that the Charter states we have rights to religion yet then states in terms of God... that's hypocritical and outdated terminology to me. Not all religions worship God and in today's population a lot of people aren't religious. To say we have a Chartered right to our choice of religion yet the Charter is based on God's morality and supremacy...

You could say I'm one of those ridiculous leftists that want God removed from things and yeah, that wouldn't be a bad idea to me. Mainly because of issues like this one.

By placing the word God into our Charter, it has left it open to Christian entitlement that we must all live to their moral standards. Each person and religion has different moralities. They're usually fairly similar and generic and what most people feel anyway. But in the odd case, like abortion, they fall short of properly addressing the situation and the population. I can't say I've ever met someone who is pro life based on a purely individual moral standard with no religion impacting their judgement but if any of you here are, please feel free to change that. It's just been my experience that abortion is not a moral debate, it is a religious debate and as a religious debate it has no business being flung at the government as the government should not be showing any sort of preference for any kind of religion. The State should be completely separated from the Church. Every church.

[burnt]

....
I can say I have little problem with the original topic issue. But I'm pro choice so that's why and I recognize that fact. It doesn't really impact me so I don't have a problem with it. Such is human nature. If it was the other way you're damn right I would be upset!

....

Upset to the point of denying others their Charter rights?

You see the problem that the Charter has created - it enables the picking of winners and losers.

[Blaithin]

Upset to the point of denying others their Charter rights?

You see the problem that the Charter has created - it enables the picking of winners and losers.

All things allow the picking of winners and losers because everyone's going to apply their own interpretation to it.

Morality - something that changes in all people.

Some people aren't born with a sense of morality, or have a differing sense of morality.

A sociopath lacks a sense of moral responsibility and social conscious. Therefore who's morality do we base anything on. Someone with a moral compass in hyper drive or someone who's is recognized as lacking when compared to others.

Western morality differs from Eastern morality. 20th century morality is greatly different from even 19th century morality.

You could say that we're in a democracy and thus everyone should have the same rights, should always be right and be winners, but that's not ever going to happen. Even in a democracy you're going to have people who feel their morals are the superior ones and therefore the ones to be followed which means the people with differing morals are going to feel like the losers. And even in a democracy the government is going to advance the morals they feel are right which is going to mean some are going to feel wronged or denied.

[tweety]

Upset to the point of denying others their Charter rights?

Not when those rights you claim are being denied are contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms for all Canadians.

Much like priests that felt the charter denied them the the right and freedom to molest children?

[Klause]

Congrats, Trudeau.


You've managed to open up the abortion debate again in a country where it's been settled for two decades.




It's pretty bad when liberal feminists that write for Chatelaine are raising the alarm bells.
http://www.chatelaine.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-pro-choice/ http://www.chatelaine.com/opinion/justin-trudeau-pro-choice/



The problem with blind liberalism... is it's blind and ignorant. As long as government does what we want it's great and we'll gladly make other people give up their rights... never thinking where this will go in the future...


I'd like to know how forcing nuns to attest that they support gays and abortions to get funding for a cherry festival is in any way shape or form in line with the Charter. It isn't. It wouldn't fly anywhere in the Western world.

The fact we even require a debate on this shows the ignorance of some people. Perhaps a plane trip with a one-way ticket to Venezuela, North Korea, Vietnam, or China is in order...

[Klause]

Also on this....


The public healthcare system is expected to pay for abortions...

Yet condoms, IUD's and birth control pills are not only for-profit, but taxed.


Maybe let's make those available to all for free... there'd probably be a lot less abortions.


Keep in mind I'm a very loose Catholic, my wife is an Atheist, and we fully planned our family and used contraceptives till we were "ready" (haha - like you can ever be ready for kids)...

I'm not against abortion, and you'll never find me at a pro or against life rally.


HOWEVER. I cherish freedom, liberty, and personal rights. As such the minute Trudeau attacked those we had a problem.

[Blaithin]

Also on this....


The public healthcare system is expected to pay for abortions...

Yet condoms, IUD's and birth control pills are not only for-profit, but taxed.


Maybe let's make those available to all for free... there'd probably be a lot less abortions.

I do agree with that, completely.

However, condoms being the exception to those three, IUD's, the pill, and I'm nearly 100% sure all other birth control options, are subsidized by the health care system. We do not pay their full cost. At least here in Alberta I don't. While they aren't free, they aren't that expensive either. I don't know their cost in other provinces but I've seen American's say how expensive the pill can be for them and it's not even in the same solar system price wise.

Sadly I don't think making BC options free would make them used that much more. Usually there's other inhibiting factors to using them than the cost. Not to mention the intelligence needed for some is sadly lacking in some people...