# data[].attributes.body
This image shows 3 main religions and visualizes how everybody should have Freedom of Religion.

# data[].attributes.body
This video offers some insight and knowledge into the controversial topic of Freedom of Religion and how it has evolved over the past decade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Current events in Canada have got me thinking more about freedom of religion. It's challenging to ensure our worldviews are coherent when it comes to controversial political discussions.

# data[].attributes.body
Although an American based video, this video also talks about Freedom of Religion and gives some examples in the past that changed the way people look at it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Religion: Crash Course Government and Politics #24

# data[].attributes.body
This article tells how under Trudeau, the government will no longer be offering funding to summer student programs who don't agree with them in their decision of "pro-choice".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The government is changing the rules around which employers can qualify for funding to hire students through the Canada Summer Jobs program to try and ensure that groups advocating against abortion rights or the equality of LGBTQ2 Canadians will not be able to get funding.

At the same time, the changes will seek to boost support for groups offering services and supports to the LGBTQ2 community as well as those offering opportunities to women in engineering and mathematics, Indigenous Canadians, immigrants and minority official language communities.

The change comes after a series of articles about Liberal and Conservative MPs approving tens of thousands of dollars in summer job grants to anti-abortion groups in their ridings during the 2016 program, despite the money being made available by a government that prominently branded itself as pro-choice.
READ MORE: Government looking to shut down summer job grants for anti-abortion groups
Now the changes the government is making to the program will require groups applying for funding through the Canada Summer Jobs program to sign an attestation stating that their organizational mandate as well as the duties of the job they are seeking funding for respect human rights in Canada.

"To be eligible, applicants will have to attest that: both the job and the 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," reads a PowerPoint presentation created to brief MPs on the new changes and shared with Global News.

"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."

An April 2017 report found that anti-abortion groups in the Mississauga-Erin Mills riding of Liberal MP Iqra Khalid had received $56,000 in federal summer job grants in 2016.
READ MORE: Anti-abortion group got $56K federal grant from Liberal MP
In August 2017, a similar report found that anti-abortion groups in the riding of Rachael Harder, the Conservatives' then-newly appointed status of women critic and Lethbridge MP, had received close to $12,000 in the same grants in 2016.

Government officials had said on background in April that Employment Minister Patty Hajdu was looking at options for how to change the program to prevent that from happening again and that anti-abortion groups in Liberal-held ridings would not be allowed to receive summer job grants through the 2017 program.

This change, eight months in the making, will go into effect for the 2018 program and apply to groups in ridings held by all MPs, regardless of party.

"The objective of the change is to prevent Government of Canada funding from flowing to organizations whose mandates or projects may not respect individual human rights, the values underlying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and associated case law," the briefing material states.

"Additionally, these changes help prevent youth (as young as 15 years of age) from being exposed to employment within organizations that may promote positions that are contrary to the values enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and associated case law. This change helps to ensure that youth job opportunities funded by the Government of Canada take place in an environment that respects the rights of all Canadians."

In a statement to Global News, Hajdu said the change ensures that federal money will be used to create jobs that are meaningful and that will do a better job of giving youth relevant work experience that can translate into the real-world.

"Canada's future prosperity depends on young Canadians getting the education and experience they'll need to succeed in their careers, keeping our economy growing and our middle class thriving. That's why, since our government was elected, we've doubled the number of Canada Summer Jobs per year compared to the previous government," she said.

"Last spring I instructed my department officials to do a thorough review of the program, including funding criteria, in advance of this year's call for proposals. As a result of the review, this year, CSJ applicants will be required to attest that both the job and the employer's core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We're focused on meaningful work experience for young people that will help grow the economy and strengthen the middle class."

Advocate praises move but questions efficiency

It remains to be seen exactly how that attestation will be measured: for example, if an anti-abortion group signs the attestation, who is ultimately responsible for making sure that application is not approved and that funding is allocated to hire a student to hand out anti-abortion fliers?

Darrah Teitel, public affairs officer at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, praised the decision to bring in the attestation but said there are questions over what more can be done and how effective the use of an attestation will be in weeding out groups that might just sign the attestation and hope they slip through the cracks.

"Action Canada believes that this is obviously a move in a positive direction. It's something that abortion rights advocates have been asking for for an extremely long time so it's gratifying to see the federal government finally take action on it," she said, and also called for the government to go further and revoke the charitable status of groups that advocate against abortion or that are anti-gay.

"These organizations often disseminate false and intentionally misleading health information which means people are impacted when they try to seek reproductive and sexual health services."

Some of the anti-abortion groups funded last year in Harder's riding billed themselves as pregnancy care centres but refused to provide information on or referrals to clients seeking abortion, and were linked in to larger networks of religious organizations that actively advocate against access to abortion in Canada.

In the presentation made to MPs, the government notes that the changes will not make churches or religious and faith-based organizations themselves ineligible for the program, saying "that an organization is affiliated with a religion does not itself constitute ineligibility."
WATCH BELOW: #ILookLikeAnEngineer goes viral as women challenge gender stereotypes in tech
LGBT, women among new program priorities

In addition, the government is setting out five core priority areas for the Canada Summer Jobs program this year to target specific types of work across the country.

Those priorities are to fund employers who intend to hire youth from underrepresented groups such as new immigrant youth and refugees, Indigenous youth, youth with disabilities and visible minorities, as well as to fund jobs through small businesses and organizations that support opportunities in official language minority communities.

Organizations that provide services and supports for the LGBTQ2 community will also be a priority under the 2018 program, as will organizations that provide jobs in the STEM fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as information and communications technology, and particularly those opportunities that go to women.

Women are consistently underrepresented in STEM fields: only one in four university graduates in computer science and math are women, while in engineering that number is one in five.

How does the program work?

Groups looking to secure funding can apply as of Tuesday until Feb. 2, 2018, and applications will be assessed by Service Canada officials between February and March.
In March, tentative lists of groups recommended to receive funding will be drawn up and sent to MPs for validation, at which point the MP can recommend funding for more or fewer jobs through the group, as well as whether to fund them at all.

Service Canada will then make the final approval, and any changes recommended by MPs will be made available to Canadians under access to information laws.

Groups will receive notification of whether they are approved to get funding in April 2018.

The Canada Summer Jobs program is a federal program that allows not-for-profit organizations to get funding to cover up to 100 per cent of the cost of hiring Canadians between the ages of 15 and 30 for temporary, full-time summer work.

Public-sector and private-sector employers can get funding to cover up to 50 per cent of those costs through the program.

MPs play a large role in determining local priorities and validating the lists of recommended projects drawn up and sent to them for validation by Service Canada.

Those lists have historically been based on what was funded the year before.

Each year, the program has $107.5 million to disperse but in 2016, the government announced it would provide an extra $113 million per year for three years to effectively double the size of the program and the number of jobs it can fund for young Canadians.

That additional funding expires in 2018 unless it is renewed in the next budget.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canada Summer Jobs program will no longer fund anti-abortion, anti-gay groups

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The government is changing the rules around which employers can qualify for funding to hire students through the Canada Summer Jobs program to try and ensure that groups advocating against abortion rights or the equality of LGBTQ2 Canadians will not be able to get funding.

# data[].attributes.body
A Pro-life association group in Toronto is taking the Trudeau to court over his decision to cancel summer student funding unless certain requirements are met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OTTAWA-The Toronto Right to Life Association is taking the federal Liberal government to court over its decision to limit Canada Summer Jobs Program funding to groups whose "core mandate" respects charter rights, including the right to have an abortion, according to government officials.

Two officials who spoke to the Star say the Liberal government hasn't yet received the formal papers but has been advised the group filed an application for judicial review Friday with the Federal Court.

For years local MPs set out which groups would be given priority to receive funding under the jobs program.

The Liberals say that under that system, groups which promoted anti-abortion or anti-LGBTQ messages applied for and got federal money, including anti-abortion groups such as Campaign Life Coalition, Life Site News, Priests for Life, and the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform.

After a review last summer, the Liberal government revised eligibility criteria for the program. It now requires that the "core mandate" of an organization "must respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

The government's website says the new criteria does not exclude churches or faith-based groups, but it does say the group's work must respect Charter values including "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."

To be eligible, a group must sign an "attestation" that its core mandate respects those fundamental values.

The change prompted anger among many. Campaign Life coalition declared on its website that the Trudeau government wants people to "renounce your faith."

"Trudeau is using the Canada Summer Jobs Program to compel and coerce Canadians to renounce their deeply held religious or moral beliefs, in exchange for federal funding," said Jack Fonseca, spokesperson for Campaign Life Coalition, in a statement posted online. "This reeks of a deep-seated, anti-religious bigotry. Increasingly, Justin Trudeau is transforming the Liberal party into a hate group against Christians, whom he clearly wants to suppress. This program change must be stopped."

Reached late Friday, a spokesperson for the Toronto Right to Life Association said the lawsuit argues the group's charter rights to freedom of conscience and religious belief, to free speech, and its right to equal treatment under the law are violated by the government's new requirement that it sign the attestation before it can be eligible for money.

"We believe we shouldn't be treated unequally because we hold different beliefs from the government on a social issue," Blaise Alleyne, president of the volunteer board, said in an interview. He said the group received $10,000 from the summer jobs program in 2016, and was eligible but denied funding in 2017 for an "unspecified reason" - and sued over that denial.

That claim was settled in November, he said, with the group receiving its funding request for the same amount as the previous year.

He said forcing the group to sign an attestation amounts to the government compelling speech, adding "out conscience does not allow us to sign."

Employment Minister Patty Hajdu's office said Friday the government is "committed to ensuring that youth job opportunities funded by the Government of Canada take place in an environment that respects the rights of all Canadians, and ensuring that federal funding supports employment opportunities that respect existing laws, including human rights law and labour law, to which public, private and not-for-profit organizations are already subject," according to a statement by Hajdu's spokesperson, Carlene Variyan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-abortion group takes Trudeau government to court | Toronto Star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OTTAWA-The Toronto Right to Life Association is taking the federal Liberal government to court over its decision to limit Canada Summer Jobs Program funding to groups whose "core mandate" respects charter rights, including the right to have an abortion, according to government officials.

# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines how the RCMP is now allowing Muslim female mounties to now wear a hijab, where it would before hinder the use of their helmet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Mounties have adopted a new uniform policy to allow female Muslim officers to wear the hijab.

Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, confirmed that RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson recently approved an addition to the uniform policy to allow women officers to wear the head scarf "if they so choose."

"The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a progressive and inclusive police service that values and respects persons of all cultural and religious backgrounds," Bardsley said in an email.

Male members of the Sikh faith have been able to wear the turban as part of the RCMP uniform since the early 1990s, he noted.

That right was won by Baltej Singh Dhillon, a young practising Sikh who wanted to become a Mountie but also wanted to wear a turban on the job.

The federal government's decision in 1990 to end the ban and allow him provoked emotional debate and widespread protests across Canada.

Bardsley said the new policy is intended to better reflect diversity in Canadian communities and to encourage more Muslim women to consider the RCMP as a career option.

Special RCMP hijab developed

RCMP Staff Sgt. Julie Gagnon said current policy, which came into effect in January 2016, requires an "exemption" to wear the hijab from the commissioner, the only senior officer permitted to approve faith-based accommodations.

Gagnon said the RCMP developed a hijab for applicants or serving female members of the Islamic faith, reflecting "the diversity of the RCMP's workforce." It underwent rigorous testing to ensure the design meets "the highest standards of officer safety."

She said the RCMP currently has no members requesting to wear the hijab on duty.

The only other religious or cultural item allowed is the turban for male officers.

Toronto, Edmonton police allow

Bardsley said the RCMP will be the third Canadian police force to adopt the hijab policy, behind Toronto and Edmonton police services. Police services across the U.K., Sweden and Norway, and some in U.S. states, have also adopted similar policies.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims applauded the policy change, calling it a "welcome one and a natural evolution for Canadian policing." The advocacy group said three types of headscarves were tested to select one that would not encumber officers and could be easily removed when required.

"While in 1990 there was initial reluctance to allow Sikh RCMP officers to wear the turban as part of their uniforms, Canadians have since embraced the change and we expect that this will be the same with the decision to allow the hijab, said the council's communications director Amira Elghawaby in a release.

"The Canadian Muslim population is growing and this decision will help reflect the richness and diversity of our country as well as open up career options for minorities."

The military has longstanding policies "to protect and promote the religious or spiritual rights and freedoms of [Canadian Armed Forces] members," including accommodating religious and spiritual requirements "if militarily practicable."

"The CAF would evaluate a request, taking into account the religious beliefs of the member, and make a decision based on safety and operational considerations," spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier said in an email.

In past, the policy has allowed members of the Sikh religion to wear a turban, as long as it does not jeopardize operational safety.

Certain conditions

He noted that Lt.-Cmdr. Wafa Dabbagh became the first CAF member to wear the hijab in 1996.

According to the military's dress instructions manual dated 2001, members can wear the hijab with certain conditions.

"For spiritual and religious reasons, members are authorized to wear the hijab, provided that any danger should be avoided when they carry some types of operational gear parts such as gas mask, oxygen mask, combat/vehicle/flying/ construction helmets, diver's mask, etc.," the policy reads.

"In case of real danger, these members shall modify their hairstyling or hijab, or both, in a way that will allow them to wear the requested gear."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Female Muslim Mounties can now wear hijab on the job | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Mounties have adopted a new uniform policy to allow female Muslim officers to wear the hijab. Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, confirmed that RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson recently approved an addition to the uniform policy to allow women officers to wear the head scarf "if they so choose."

# data[].attributes.body
This image shows how individual people can refuse search to their homes if there is not a warrant present and without due cause.

# data[].attributes.body
This video offers some insight into what rights people have against the ever-powerful authorities and what they can do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Search and Seizure: Crash Course Government and Politics #27

# data[].attributes.body
This image visualizes how everybody should, and does, have rights even after being arrested and/or detained.

# data[].attributes.body
Questions 1-5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitution and The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
The article outlines how the Government may now use our phones to search us up and how our rights apply online.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Doug Beazley December 15, 2017 15 December 2017

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada dropped a ruling that (depending on where you sit) either affirms the privacy rights of people taking part in digital conversations - or makes the work of police and prosecutors a whole lot harder.

In 2012, Toronto police executed a series of search warrants at four addresses related to a gun trafficking investigation. Three of the addresses linked back to one Andrew Winchester; one linked back to Nour Marakah. When police executed the warrants they seized the suspects' phones - Marakah's BlackBerry and Winchester's iPhone. A subsequent search of the phones found text messages that police said implicated both men in gun trafficking.

Marakah was convicted of several firearms offences, largely on the strength of the texts he had exchanged with Winchester - texts that were pulled from Winchester's phone. Marakah challenged the search and seizure of Winchester's phone under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the section that guarantees against "unreasonable search and seizure."

To decide whether the texts on the iPhone should have been allowed into evidence, the application judge - and, four years later, the Ontario Court of Appeal - had to answer a question that borders on the metaphysical: Where do texts exist once they've been sent? In other words, did Marakah - by sending an incriminating text to a phone which was not in his control - lose the "reasonable expectation of privacy" required for a Section 8 challenge that was established by the SCC in 1996 in R. v. Edwards?

The application judge ruled Marakah did not enjoy that expectation of privacy because Winchester's phone belonged to Winchester, not Marakah. "The sender of a text message," the judge ruled, "has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents after it has been sent but before it reaches its intended destination." The appeal court agreed.

On Dec. 8, 2017, the SCC disagreed, stating in a 5-2 decision that, since "the subject matter of the search is the conversation" - which didn't exist in one phone or the other, but in some liminal space in between - the expectation of privacy attaches to the exchange of texts, not the hardware. The incriminating phone was, as the lower court pointed out, beyond Marakah's effective "control" - but the "expectation of privacy" endured.

"Control," wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin for the majority, "is not an absolute indicator of a reasonable expectation of privacy, nor is lack of control fatal to a privacy interest."

The Crown conceded that, if Marakah had standing under Section 8, his right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure had been violated. The SCC, citing section 24.2 of the Charter (the exclusion of evidence obtained through a violation of Charter rights), set aside his convictions.

The implications for law enforcement are pretty obvious. "It was a bold move by the majority," said Kris Klein, an Ottawa-based lawyer and specialist in privacy law.

"My first thought on reading it was, 'I feel kind of bad for the police.'"

The debate on the SCC bench must have been heated. Justice Michael Moldaver, delivering a blistering minority opinion, attacked the majority's decision to grant Marakah Section 8 standing as absurd, since Marakah had no more control over what Winchester did with the texts than he did over investigators' use of them. The decision to "sever" the link between privacy and control, he wrote, is "at odds with the fundamental principle that individuals can and will share information as they see fit in a free and democratic society."

Worse, he added, the majority decision risks making Section 8 a Charter right without boundaries. "This carries with it a host of foreseeable consequences," he wrote, predicting justice system gridlock and the imposition of unreasonable new obstacles on investigations of crimes against "children, the elderly and people with mental disabilities."

The decision, he argued, "leads inexorably to the conclusion that a sexual predator who sends sexually explicit text messages to a child ... has a reasonable expectation of privacy in those messages on that (child's) phone."

"The minority argument turned out to be pretty compelling," said Barbara McIssac, a lawyer in a solo practice in Ottawa who co-wrote with Kris Klein and Ottawa lawyer Rick Shields the seminal text on the topic, The Law of Privacy in Canada.

"It's going to make things difficult (for police). Had the police obtained a warrant for the phone itself, there would have been no problem."

McLachlin herself took direct aim at Moldaver's claim that broader Section 8 claims will threaten police probes of sexual predators and stalkers, saying that while the "totality of circumstances" may allow someone sending a threatening or exploitative text to claim the right of privacy over it, "it does not follow that the accused's argument will succeed, or that a search of the text messages will be found to violate (Section 8)." And even in cases where texts are volunteered by recipients or third parties as evidence, she wrote, "a breach can be avoided if the police obtain a warrant prior to accessing the text messages."

"There's this notion inherent (in the minority opinion) that the law can adapt, but law enforcement can't," said Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "But it can, of course. The court here is trying to evolve privacy law covering conversations to address texting. And just because a decision makes things more difficult (for law enforcement), that doesn't make the decision wrong."

Toronto-based privacy lawyer Christine Lonsdale - who submitted written and oral arguments in the case for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association - said the majority's reference to the "totality of circumstances" suggests the Supreme Court is willing to allow courts to decide on the privacy of texts on a "case-by-case basis."

She also pointed to a second decision released by the SCC on the same day - an appeal by a man convicted of drug offenses challenging a production order used by Ottawa police to seize text messages held on a Telus server. In that case, the Supreme Court agreed Tristan Jones should have been allowed to make a Section 8 argument - but concluded the police obtained the texts lawfully. "You can find a reasonable expectation of privacy with a text," Lonsdale said, "but on its own that doesn't answer the question of whether it can be submitted as evidence."

In other words, said McIssac, the message for law enforcement is clear: "When in doubt, get a warrant."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unwarranted: The search and seizure of text messages in Canada

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Doug Beazley December 15, 2017 15 December 2017 Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada dropped a ruling that (depending on where you sit) either affirms the privacy rights of people taking part in digital conversations - or makes the work of police and prosecutors a whole lot harder.

# data[].attributes.body
This website offers advice and information on what your rights are if arrested and what you can legally do.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, sets out your rights.

If you are arrested or detained, you must be:

told why you have been arrested or detained, and why the police are investigating you,

told immediately that you have the right to a lawyer,

told about Legal Aid and your right to free legal advice, and

allowed to speak, in private, to a lawyer of your choice, as soon as possible, if you ask to do so.

The police do not have to give you an opportunity to speak to a lawyer unless you say that you want to. And if you speak to a lawyer, the police can assume that you got the legal advice you needed. So if you did not understand what the lawyer told you or you are not satisfied with the advice you got, tell the police that you want to:

speak to the lawyer again, or

speak to another lawyer.

If you are under 18

If you are under the age of 18, the police have to treat you differently than an adult. This applies if you are arrested or detained or if they suspect that you have committed a crime.

The police should tell you that:

you do not have to say anything,

anything you say may be used as evidence against you,

you have the right to speak to a lawyer,

you have the right to contact your parents or guardian, and

you have the right to have your parents or guardian and a lawyer with you, if you want them there, when the police question you.

You do not have to choose between calling your parents or guardian and calling a lawyer. You can do both. And, if you contact them, you can have your parents or guardian and a lawyer with you when the police question you.

If you ask to speak to a lawyer

The police should stop questioning you if:

you ask to speak to a lawyer, and

you make a reasonable effort to contact and speak to a lawyer.

If you have been arrested or detained, the police should give you the 24-hour, toll-free number to get free legal advice from duty counsel. This is a lawyer provided by Legal Aid Ontario.

After you speak to a lawyer, the police may continue to ask you questions. Even if you say that you do not want to answer, they can continue to ask. However, you have the right to remain silent and do not have to answer.

Unless you are under 18, the police do not have to let you have a lawyer with you while they question you. If you have spoken to a lawyer, the police do not usually have to let you speak to a lawyer again during the same interview. But they might have to let you do this if something has changed so that you need to get legal advice again. For example, this could happen if the police start to question you about a different and more serious crime.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are my rights if I am arrested or detained? - CLEO (Community Legal Education Ontario / Éducation juridique communautaire Ontario)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, sets out your rights.