Canada Summer Jobs Program

The whole question of women’s rights came up again recently over the new Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) Program that will provide wage subsidies to employers to create employment for students.

To be eligible for the grant, a job and organization must “respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) 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.”

The Issue

The contentious issue is that a qualifying applicant must declare that they respect women’s rights and other rights explicitly named in the Charter. If an organization’s core mandate is to restrict or remove these rights to an abortion or other freedoms of individuals or is unable to declare that it respects these rights for whatever reason it does not qualify for funding under this program.

Essentially, if the core reason for an organization to exist is to work against the reproductive rights of women, you don’t qualify for summer youth job funding.

Many organizations say they cannot attest to this statement because they do not respect these rights as a matter of their core religious beliefs…and it is their right to get this funding.

Why shouldn’t any organization be able to state unequivocally that it accepts the right of a person to be free from legal action when they make choices about their own anatomy in this country.  Applicants are not being asked to respect the choice an individuals makes – just that it is theirs to make – in a country where it is theirs to make.

Women’s Rights in Canada

Yes, it is true that in Canada, in 2018, there is no law respecting the reproductive rights of its citizens. An abortion is no more restricted than any other medical procedure. Men and women in this country have the right to apply their own priorities and aspirations regarding their reproductive decisions.

Up until 1969 it was criminal for women to practice any kind of contraception or even to talk about it. Then there was S. 251 of the Criminal Code (1969) which only made it a criminal offense to provide (life imprisonment) or seek (two years in prison) an abortion without certification from an ad hoc committee. These committees, by the way, were made up of at least 3 doctors, existed in only a few larger communities and could take up to 8 weeks to render a decision. Due in part to these restrictive procedures, S.251 was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 by conflicting with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1987), and specifically Section 7 the security of person clause. Thank you Section 7!

So, no law. Good. (Should I also mention that there is also no law specifying when or if a man can have a vasectomy? Of course not, why would there be? Men can make their own decisions.)

Do We Need a Law?

A law or regulation is put in place to modify behaviour because the public has a compelling interest in the outcome and people can’t be trusted to make the “right” decision without it. If there were to be a law, it might go something like this (I’m paraphrasing):

You, woman, don’t know how to make this decision, so we will force our criteria on you, decide what is relevant to be considered and also make that decision for you. You can just lie back and think of your country.  Your body may be commandeered and your future will be forever affected, but this decision isn’t about you after all.

Legally removing another citizen’s right to body autonomy should be horrifying to everyone – even men. A government does not just get to reach inside another person’s body to get to something else, without getting permission from the person you are reaching through. It can be a new idea for some, but no person or government should get to control another person’s body without their consent.

Surely, if we are learning anything from the #metoo movement, it is this:
You need a woman’s consent before you do anything to her body.

Religious groups have a right to their own opinions as do we all. They have pulpits, websites, publications, many other public fora in which to speak and be heard as do we all – we also get to choose whether to listen or not. Surely they shouldn’t dictate rules for those of us who do not subscribe to their beliefs and have chosen not to be part of their group?

But It’s a Baby

I understand that some people believe that a baby’s life is hanging in the balance and that belief informs their personal convictions with respect to reproduction. Such an individual probably won’t medically interfere with their own pregnancy – although even they might given certain circumstances. Non-abortion laws are not about “protecting innocent children”, they are about who gets to make the personal decisions about your body. Period.

Unborn means just that – not born, not a citizen, not your flock, not your responsibility and not your business. I know I likely won’t be persuading anyone on this point but that is fine since there may never be consensus  – just the reason why each person must decide for themselves.

Safety Zones

Oh, but what a despicable thing to picket at a clinic! It is their right to do it of course, but I strongly disagree with that choice. These picketers have no idea what is going on with each person or what went into their private decision. They may even agree with it in some cases. Regardless, when their actions make it difficult, traumatizing or effectively restricts access to legal medical procedures, then I support Ontario and other provinces on providing a safety zone around clinics.

We all have the right to inform, persuade, support or even shame our fellow citizens, but surely we need to recognize, even respect each other’s humanity, body autonomy and women’s rights once a decision is made.

The Jobs Program Application

Let’s be clear – this is not about an organization having a deeply held religious belief for themselves and their adherents – it is that they are working to remove another citizen’s rights to decide how, when or if they have children as well as other rights guaranteed in the Charter.

Should our government make a requirement to receive specific public funding contingent on whether or not your group respects the legal rights that currently exist for its citizens?

Requiring an organization to declare they will respect the current legal rights of its fellow citizens is a pretty basic ask isn’t it?  Add to that, that the question is asked as part of an evaluation for additional funding from a national program. Make the declaration or don’t apply.

What if an individual cannot respect another citizen’s legal rights because of their religious beliefs against those rights? 

First, I don’t see how including a religious justification precludes one from accepting that another person has a right even if they don’t agree with how they choose to exercise their right. Second, holding an opinion should be a personal individual decision not taken on whole cloth from someone else.

The place from which a person professes to get their morals is irrelevant in my opinion.  It makes an argument no more legitimate or compelling than any another – except to the individual. I notice that even with religion as a foundation for morality there are still wildly different opinions in nearly every moral outcome.  Ideas must stand or fall on their own merits, not where they came from or who holds them.

By making this declaration, an organization is then required to support abortion, gay marriage, women’s rights, equality, etc.?

The declaration clearly says respecting the rights, not accepting or agreeing with them. Make the declaration or don’t apply.

Staying on point

So much of the discussion I see by major news outlets is defending the “good work” done by churches with this funding or calling it a requirement to be pro-abortion.  It is just a diversion and it is so frustrating!

These are not special organizations with perfect motives – they can be just as corrupt and greedy as any other big corporation with an agenda. We had to name things in the Charter to ensure equal treatment especially from these groups.

The issue is …

The issue is whether organizations looking for funding for summer student jobs will respect the rights currently accorded all citizens of this country. Women have the right of choice (not abortion) in their medical decisions.  That is, the right not to be controlled by the government on a personal decision with enormous personal ramifications and limited societal affect.

Churches can still do their good works trying to take away women’s rights. They can even do it with their tax reliefs and all the praises and hallelujahs heaped upon them by their supporters. In my opinion, they do not need to qualify for all programs.  I also draw the line when they are subsidized by government to hire youth to do it for and with them.

But what if the shoe was on the other foot?

I  hear the argument that well, it wouldn’t be right if it was for something we didn’t agree with so why is it okay if it is a side we agree with.  I guess the concern is that the ‘other side’ could justifiably decide to enforce their own mores onto the law as power pendulum swings.  On a side note, I find this often from the American perspective on this and other issues.  I think that on many social metrics, they are behind us (e.g., healthcare, guns, capital punishment, tax law, media integrity, social safety net), so it is a reality they must consider. In Canada, the dynamic is a bit different.

First, the truth is, in my opinion, these are not just two equal sides of this issue.  It is not anti-abortion vs abortion.  It is control vs. choice.  One side says you must do this and only based on these criteria.  The other side is choice and personal criteria. The outcome in both could be the same.

In Canada, it has been over 25 years that women have been in control of these deeply personal decisions for themselves. 

In Conclusion

These are not just any rights – this is the basic right for citizens to control our own bodies. It is not just an issue to fight for, it is an issue that should be no longer up for discussion. It needs to be settled as a foundational right in Canadian society.

No, it is not just the right to an abortion, if desired, but the recognition that an individual gets to weigh the factors, apply their own aspirations and priorities and make the final decisions affecting their physical bodies whether it is abortion or pregnancy, conception or contraception, cremation or burial, life support or letting go.

I do not think that my government must fund activities that are focused on taking away or restricting women’s rights, LGBtQ2 rights or any other rights implicitly or explicitly under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think an organization can respect our rights to make a choice without necessarily agreeing with the choice.