Never call a federal cabinet minister a "hooker"

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
The Canadian Arab Federation has come out with a hardline stance towards what they percieve as the current gov't stance vis-avis Arabs.

They're funded by the gov't to the tune of $447,000 to further the economic integration of new Arabic immigrants into Canada.

They chose to use their funded to become bellicose and confrontational

I'm all for Kenney yanking their funding

It's never smart to call a federal cabinet minister a "*****" - not when you depend on him for money. But Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation, is a fearless man. At a recent anti-Israel rally, he referred to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney as a "professional *****" for supporting Israel.
He called Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff professional *****s, too. A couple of years ago, when five children from Montreal were killed in the Lebanon war, he said Mr. Harper was "complicit in their killing." At the Liberal convention at which Bob Rae ran for leader, he circulated a letter accusing Mr. Rae of being a racist Zionist, and pointing out that his wife is a Jew.

Last week, Mr. Kenney bit back. He asked his bureaucrats to yank the CAF's $447,000 grant. "They can say what they want within the parameters of our laws, but they shouldn't expect a priori funding." Now the CAF is accusing Mr. Kenney of trying to stifle its right to democratic speech. According to executive director Mohamed Boudjenane, the government's real motive for punishing the CAF is most likely political. "They maybe decided to go after the Zionist vote, like Reisman and Schwartz and Tannenbaum - people who used to be Liberal."

With a budget of more than $1-million a year, the Canadian Arab Federation depends heavily for its existence on taxpayers' money. It claims this funding is used entirely for programs that help newcomers adjust to Canadian society, and to fight racism and Islamophobia. "Our activity as an advocacy group has nothing to do with our political activity," Mr. Boudjenane says.


But the CAF's website tells another story. The home page urges people to join protests against the "massacre on Gaza." It links to dozens of anti-Israel articles, and gives prominent play to the winners of a recent essay contest on "the ethnic cleansing of Palestine." The website was developed with a grant of $60,000 from the federal Department of Heritage.

The CAF is a prominent sponsor of anti-Israel demonstrations, which feature people waving Hamas and Hezbollah flags, and people calling for the state of Israel to be wiped off the planet. One video shows a woman pointing toward the camera and declaring: "Jewish child, you're going to f------ die. Hamas is coming for you."
Although the CAF purports to speak for the community, it doesn't care for Muslims who don't share its views. Ali Mallah, the vice-president for Ontario, has repeatedly referred to members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, a moderate group, as "house Negroes."
 
Last edited:

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't think any organization should get government funding. Just make more of our charity money tax deductible, and let them collect their own money.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
I don't think any organization should get government funding. Just make more of our charity money tax deductible, and let them collect their own money.

I don't think any organization should get government funding.

As long as they keep their political or religious views to themselves, I have no problem with "minimal" funding (<$10,000)
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't think any organization should get government funding.

As long as they keep their political or religious views to themselves, I have no problem with "minimal" funding (<$10,000)

What would be the problem with simply making more of our charitable contributions tax-deductible, and then letthem collect their own money?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
How about no funding and no tax deductions (which is still taxpayer funding), if you can't fit in (without funding) stay where you are. Not one group deserves Govt funding for purposes that are earmarked for one particular section of Canadian society.
Where is the funding for those already here so they can adapt to the newcomers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron in Regina

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
How about no funding and no tax deductions (which is still taxpayer funding), if you can't fit in (without funding) stay where you are. Not one group deserves Govt funding for purposes that are earmarked for one particular section of Canadian society.
Where is the funding for those already here so they can adapt to the newcomers?

I would say that the taxpayer should have more say in how his own money is spent though. A purpose behind taxes is to ensure al citizens make a contribution to society, and that I can agree with. But when we consider how politically-motivated government spending can be, tax deductions on charitable contributions could be a way to kill two birds with one stone (i.e. ensure that we all make our contribution to society while at the same time ensuring that we have more democratic say in how that money is to be spent). Otherwise, are money just ends up getting shot down firing ranges or battlefields... literally.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I'm not sure I agree with all that you say. Not so much about Govt collecting taxes more on the how it is spent and what qualifies as a tax deduction. True charities are donation funded but if I donate $100,000 to some Church and I get back (Just say) 70% then all taxpayers have just donated $70,000 to that Church. In the meantime a person who spends (just say) $10,000 in expenses to do with working gets to deduct almost nothing (whats the set amount? $500 or something similar) Interest on bank loans cannot be deducted even though it is 'income' for the bank. Most legal fees (lawyers in buying property or any other professional services that is used throughout the year, mechanics, plumbers, painters, etc) cannot be deducted even though it is 'income' for the lawyer or whoever.

All that would cause is the 'consumer' paying less and the 'business' paying more.
Say I pay $30,000/yr in taxes with almost 0 deductions, using my 'unworkable system' my tax load is reduced to $15,000, that gives me moer cash to inject into the ecomomy and the missing $15,000 is paid by the 'professional services' I spent $30,000 on during that full year.

Now I haven't really even read the full article but are the Gov people pissed at being called hookers or pissed at being called hookers just after they have issued a cheque to somebody?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yet even with that comparison, at least some of that church money will go to helping the needy. Where does that money go if it gets into the hands of a Conservative government? Down a firing range... every cent of it. So even with that comparison, I'd rather take my chances with the church... and I don't profess the Christian Faith myself by the way.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'm not sure I agree with all that you say. Not so much about Govt collecting taxes more on the how it is spent and what qualifies as a tax deduction. True charities are donation funded but if I donate $100,000 to some Church and I get back (Just say) 70% then all taxpayers have just donated $70,000 to that Church.

No. The contributor gave 70,000 dollars to that church. Since I don't profess the Christian Faith myself, I wouldn't want my own money going to that church, but I dont consider that contributor's money to be mine. Likewise with money going to a Muslim organization.

And though we might not agree with how that money is spent, the way government has been spending in recent years, I'd rather take my chances with the churches and mosques anyway. At least some of that money would end up going towards helping the poor. What about money the government gets? It seems the Conservatives just want to flush it al down the military hatch. Don't get me wrong. I understand we ned a military. But it seems to me the Conservatives can see solutions to problems only through the barrel of a gun.

In the meantime a person who spends (just say) $10,000 in expenses to do with working gets to deduct almost nothing (whats the set amount? $500 or something similar) Interest on bank loans cannot be deducted even though it is 'income' for the bank.

And how does flushing all our money down the military hatch help him? Some churches are quite involved in providing all kinds of services for the needy, by the way.

[/quote]
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
I am a Christian but my (donated never to be seen again)money goes staraight to the poor through the (Sally Ann). I often wonder how much actually get to the really needy, I know several run soup-kitchens and such but mostly I see huge expensive Churches (monstrous structures) that for the most part are as void of life as a graveyard. I would love to see what would happen if a (for real) poor person asked for a couple of bucks from the collection tray. My imagination just can't picture even more money being shoved his way, even if he said it would all be paid back next Sunday.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
71
Saint John, N.B.
I am a Christian but my (donated never to be seen again)money goes staraight to the poor through the (Sally Ann). I often wonder how much actually get to the really needy, I know several run soup-kitchens and such but mostly I see huge expensive Churches (monstrous structures) that for the most part are as void of life as a graveyard. I would love to see what would happen if a (for real) poor person asked for a couple of bucks from the collection tray. My imagination just can't picture even more money being shoved his way, even if he said it would all be paid back next Sunday.

Yeah.

when I donate money it goes to World Vision, one of the best charities, also Christian....

Funny that.....
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
No. The contributor gave 70,000 dollars to that church. Since I don't profess the Christian Faith myself, I wouldn't want my own money going to that church, but I dont consider that contributor's money to be mine. Likewise with money going to a Muslim organization.
If I get back 70% then my real expense (that never returns) is the 30%.

I understand we ned a military.
Serious question, why do we need to spend billions year after year after year to ward off something that never is tried anyway. If a country really wanted us that bad all they have to do is outspend us. If some foreign country wants Canada fine let then invade. The 'true citizens' would just start acting like the 'rebels' (who are actually patriots) in Afghan and Iraq would just make life a living hell for the invaders, who knows maybe they are better than our own bunch of hopelessly corrupt politicians who would be the first to perish in any invasion.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I am a Christian but my (donated never to be seen again)money goes staraight to the poor through the (Sally Ann). I often wonder how much actually get to the really needy, I know several run soup-kitchens and such but mostly I see huge expensive Churches (monstrous structures) that for the most part are as void of life as a graveyard. I would love to see what would happen if a (for real) poor person asked for a couple of bucks from the collection tray. My imagination just can't picture even more money being shoved his way, even if he said it would all be paid back next Sunday.

I've volunteered my time to various organizations before (I'm not at the moment since I'm working on a new project for now, but will likely get back into it again later). This is how I know that the United Way and UNICEF are not particularly efficient. UNICEF is still efficient enough to make it worth the contribtion if you don't know of any other charity. When I'd last volunteered for a United Way agency in Victoria, I was shocked to hear of all the backroom politics, with so many different organizations fighting for funds that alot of that money took awhile to get to where it was needed, only after a hard fight between all the competing groups. For that reason, i'd say if you give ot the United Way, earmark it to a particular United Way organization. That way, they'll just give it directly rather than waste resources fighting over it.

As for religious organizations, I remember reading one article a few years ago saying that they often spent their money much more efficiently owing to much more grassroots participation and that the money generally flowed through an already well-established international administrative structure from grasroots up and then gack down to grassroots where it was needed, unlike most secular organizations where it tends to depend more on teams of experts sent abroad.

But I suppose it also depends on the kind of religious organization. The Salvation Army is likely to give a good chunk of its money to help the needy, whereas the Jehovah's Witnesses will probalby spend a good chunk of it on books. But overall, I'd suspect most religious organzations are more like the Salvation Army than the JW's. But overall, I could say that charitable contributions are likely to be used more efficiently than government spending.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
If I get back 70% then my real expense (that never returns) is the 30%.

No, the other 70% is not money being given to me; it's money I don't have to pay out in the first place because I can send in tax receipts from the charities I'd given to instead. I still have to give money out for that, the same amount other taxpayers give out. And since it's charity and not, let's say, an RRSp or life insurance, etc., I am not necessarily going to be a direct beneficiary of that money. And if something ever happens to me that I shoudl need their services later, they'd treat me like any other person in need, no preference given for my having contributed to them before. So it's still a contribution to the community, no strings attached. In fact, I would have done society a favour by having studied the market to find out what the community needs and then given that money appropriately, thus saving the government from having to waste all that time and money trying to figure out what to do with my money.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Yeah.

when I donate money it goes to World Vision, one of the best charities, also Christian....

Funny that.....

Interesting. Is that thorugh your local church? Anyway, I really should try to find that article. It was well-researched and was showing how religious organizations generally speaking (not Christian specifically) tended to have a more grassroots and much more efficient and thus fiscally less demanding administrative structure than secuar ones. UNICEF proved o be one of the more efficient secular ones, but even it was still beaten hands down by many religious ones.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
To give to a Church I would first have to see them be willing to 'trim things down to the minimum'. Think Vatican. I think it was the Red Cross I was reading about wher some witch in California had pocketed about a $250,000 as 'wages' for herself and nothing more was said really so I assume she got to keep it and her replacement probably got close to the same. The money was not the main point of the article although is was a scandal related article.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
To give to a Church I would first have to see them be willing to 'trim things down to the minimum'. Think Vatican. I think it was the Red Cross I was reading about wher some witch in California had pocketed about a $250,000 as 'wages' for herself and nothing more was said really so I assume she got to keep it and her replacement probably got close to the same. The money was not the main point of the article although is was a scandal related article.

Sure there would be corruption in such a system, just as we do with the government. but at least it wouldn't be my tax dollars. I give to organizations that I'm intimately familiar with. I get the impression Colpie has done his homework on this too, and maybe you too. But I think this would be better than so much government in that we could keep a much closer eye on how our money is really spent. More democratic participation,let's say. Also, as we gain experience, and as the media start to home in on the questionable charities, people would start to shift to the more reputable ones... until and unless they start to become inefficient too. This would keep them all on their toes. With government, all we have is a monopoly.

Let's go back to Colpie's example. He gives to World Vision. If one day he finds out that their money it not spent very efficiently, guess what. He looks for a different charity. Can he do that if he finds that the government is not spending its money efficiently? Or let's look at UNICEF. It might not be as efficient as some others, but efficient enough none-the-less. Those looking for a more secular option at least have UNICEF as an option as long as it can maintain its reputation. If it goes donw, people shift. This would keep charities on their toes. What does government give us? Labour Unions holding us hostage.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
I am a Christian but my (donated never to be seen again)money goes staraight to the poor through the (Sally Ann). I often wonder how much actually get to the really needy, I know several run soup-kitchens and such but mostly I see huge expensive Churches (monstrous structures) that for the most part are as void of life as a graveyard. I would love to see what would happen if a (for real) poor person asked for a couple of bucks from the collection tray. My imagination just can't picture even more money being shoved his way, even if he said it would all be paid back next Sunday.

The "Sally Ann" is a registered NOT FOR PROFIT Charity. In realistic dollars and cents they make a substantial profit. The "{books" at the end of the yr read $0,
but real estate holding per year increase substantially.
 

Tyr

Council Member
Nov 27, 2008
2,152
14
38
Sitting at my laptop
but.... the gist of the post is the Canadian Arab Federation gladly taking Gov't funds and using them for political ends.

Shouldn't be able to be done
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The "Sally Ann" is a registered NOT FOR PROFIT Charity. In realistic dollars and cents they make a substantial profit. The "{books" at the end of the yr read $0,
but real estate holding per year increase substantially.

First off, it is reasonable for a charitable organization to purchase or rent property, especially if it's a particularly large one. They need offices from which to do their work. I live in Ottawa, and there's plenty of government real estate here. So don't tell me that government doesn't accumulate property. Nothing different there.